Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackash/Archive

13 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The account was created around the time that Blackash was banned from discussions about the article name of the Tree shaping article and the account began arguing along exactly the same lines as the banned user. The account is close to being an SPA with very minor edits being made to a few other articles - see contribs. Note that the discussion on Pleaching was related to the discussion on Tree shaping

The style of English of both accounts and the phrases used in them are remarkably similar:

?oygul - Blackash - 'multiple editors' 'arborsculpture not neutral' 'arborsculpture leads...'

?oygul seems to have familiarity with the long history of this discussion including knowledge of sub pages and previous discussions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Arbcom was case opened 15 days after ?oygul started editing.

This is the 2nd Sock puppet filed against editor ?oygul. Sock puppet case That one was claiming they were Sydney Blugum. Sydney Bluegum also was taken to sock puppet (on their 4th edit). Allegedly me (Blackash). Sock puppet case

What do both of these editors have in common? Well they both commented, they had read the tree shaping talk page. They both have since voiced a differing view to the filing parties.

What do the filing parties have in common? They have all advocated for the same view.

Please note it was after ?oygul added an image to pleaching plus some copy editing edit diff that Martin basically stated that ?oygul's editing on Pleaching was about the title not ?oygul Martin's diff

?oygul commented on the 3 August they have spent 3 hours reading the talk page then 10 days later ?oygul stated they have read the whole talk page and surrounds diff. As that is over 16 pages just on Tree shaping talk, I guess that has lead their opinion as voiced at the RFM. ?oygul has made points which I haven't.

All the information in ?oygul's statement can be found (in some form) on the talk pages or linked pages. The sub pages I know that I have linked to them on the talk pages at least 10 times. No surprising they found them. I have multiple posts through out these talk pages pointing out different policy issues.

The filing parties have repeatably stated that I'm the only editor that disagrees with their views. Which most likely is why ?oygul chose to point out about 'multiple editors' from the start of talk page have an issue. Neutral is a core policy not surprising it has come up. Blackash  have a chat 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My comment that is being used as evidence has since been tampered with, by Elonka. She knew before changing it that Martin was accusing me of being a sock. I want my comment reverted back to what it was. Elonka has falsely accused me of edit warring. look at Notification. I did one single undo and pointed this out to her to which she didn't retract her comment. Because I responded to Martin's removal of cited martial and his confrontational comment with "Martin you are censoring pleaching to say something else Y??oygul  (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)"  Elonka is accusing me of 'aggressive behavior. It may be opinionated but I wouldn't call it 'aggressive behavior'. ?oygul (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin has a pattern of accusing people he disagrees with as being socks. At that point the accused editor naturally becomes angry and acts out, and then Martin uses that as evidence to get them banned. This is exactly what happened to Sydney Bluegum except 2 years later. Using the wiki-legal system this way is abusive. AfD hero (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The above provides interesting evidence
The style of the two editors is very similar and the both seem to a have a remarkably good understanding of the other's motives and intentions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin again with the spin where does ?oygul talk about me? Umm I can't see it. Martin I also gave a very detailed analyses of Duffs, Colincbn and your motives and intentions yet you not listing any of them as my sock. Really it not hard to look at what an editor is saying and confirm that what is stated can be found in the talk pages.  Blackash   have a chat 04:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The Tree shaping and Pleaching articles are within the scope of a recent ArbCom case: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping. As a result of the case, three editors were placed under restrictions:, , and. As an administrator monitoring the article, I do have concerns about the recent appearance of this relatively inexperienced editor,, who seems to be extremely interested in what has been a longrunning dispute, and who has been exhibiting somewhat aggressive behavior, such as accusing other editors of censorship. I'm not familiar enough with the editing and discussion history of the articles in question to say who ?oygul might be a sock of, but it would not surprise me to learn that there was sockpuppetry going on. Checkuser assistance would be appreciated, thanks, to help determine if there might be an account here that is trying to avoid ArbCom sanctions. --Elonka 00:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * - I'll endorse per Elonka's request - mostly to find out who ?oygul is. Also note that there's another case - Sockpuppet investigations/?oygul - for that editor. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackash and ?oygul are ❌, and I cannot find anything relating to ?oygul. –MuZemike 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, alright. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)