Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1/Archive

Evidence submitted by One Night In Hackney
Please bear with me on this, as it essentially involves trying three accounts together to varying extents.

First off we'll do a brief timeline of accounts. The Aatomic1 account ceased editing on 30 April 2008, after going batsh*t insane (see the increases in talk page size, but I don't recommend trying to look at a diff as it'll wreak havoc on your browser) on his talk page while blocked. Lucian Sunday was created a few days later on 2 May 2008. The Lucian Sunday account stopped editing on 1 May 2009, seemingly as a result of this hilarious WQA thread. Then 9 hours later the Þjóðólfr account is created. Please also note the lengthy block log for Aatomic1, and the two probation entries on this ArbCom log as this history paints his current disruption being dealt with on ANI in a rather different light, and indeed would have resulted in Þjóðólfr's edit warring being treated differently also.

The editing history of all three accounts shows a similar history in terms of types of articles edited and created, such as articles about obscure laws and acts of parliament, members of the peerage, articles about obscure plants and animals, and the British Isles in general obviously. Lucian Sunday's editcount and Þjóðólfr's editcount both show their top edited talk page happened to be Talk:British Isles, and Talk:Shakespeare authorship question also appears in the top 10 for both accounts. Similarly Frank Skuse appears in Lucian Sunday's top 10 edited articles, and it also appears in Aatomic1's and he also started the article in the first place. Other common articles I found with a brief check include James Dillon (officer) (Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr), The Story of Maths (Lucian Sunday and Þjóðólfr), Nordenfelt v Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co (Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr, the article was also started by Aatomic1), Stanhope essay prize (Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr, the article was also started by Aatomic1) and Kenneth Littlejohn (Aatomic1 and Þjóðólfr, the article was also started by Aatomic1). I'm sure there's dozens more similar examples if anyone wants to do more digging as well. I know there's some tool somewhere that compares all contributions but don't know its location, so if any non-believers want to try it?

As an added note, once I declared Þjóðólfr to be a sockpuppet his bizarre Aatomic1 style trolling began, such as attacking me on another editor's (an editor I have substantial history with) talk page, and also this and this which is hardly what you'd expect from someone who's been falsely accused of sockpuppetry is it? Wouldn't you expect at least a denial? That combined with the evidence above seems pretty damning in my opinion. 2 lines of K 303  14:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
His reactions to being accused of sockery, is concerning. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikistalk shows the extent of the overlap of editing between these three accounts: Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Wikistalk supposed to be showing exactly? What is meant by the columns?  Where can I find out?  --HighKing (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the one I was thinking of, thanks. Interesting reading isn't it? 2 lines of K  303  14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets have the check user report, find out and move on -- Snowded TALK  06:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser won't help here. All the accounts except one of them are . –MuZemike 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
AFAIC, Þjóðólfr is already indefinitely blocked for disruption, while the other two accounts havn't edited in a very long time. I'm inclined to leave it as-is for now. If either of them do come back, then a CU can be run. –MuZemike 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)