Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bon courage/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
MrOllie took over reverts after Bon was warned about edit warring, and MrOllie adopted Bon's positions on the talk page and Bon disappeared after the suggestion was raised to seek 3O. The best evidence is looking at the talk page, including timestamps, as discussed below.

Background: Bon courage reverted a fringe science page on "Aquatic ape hypothesis" multiple times. Was asked to move the discussion to Talk and warned about edit warring. Suggestion to request a 3O in talk received a response seconds later by a MrOllie, with the curt reply "Here's a third opinion - the statements are obviously relevant..." MrOllie took over Bon's arguments on the talk page. MrOllie also began reverting the article in place of Bon courage. Here are two of their reverts:

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquatic_ape_hypothesis&oldid=1152480134 AAH revert 1]

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquatic_ape_hypothesis&oldid=1152478540 AAH revert 2]

Talk page: Of course any topic could be reverted by multiple people. The evidence is most clear by looking at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#Intro_relevance the argument on the Talk page]. When pressed for an outside opinion, Bon simply disappears, all of his positions adopted by MrOllie. MrOllie arrives seconds later, no one else comes to the low traffic page. MrOllie had never edited or commented on the page previously, so it would be an unexpected watchlist item.

Other historical context: Bon has been warned repeatedly, by multiple editors, on multiple issues, with escalation to admins, for violating WPs, original research, unexplained reversions or deletions, and edit warring behavior. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bon_courage Bon's talk page]

Warning: Note also that Bon has repeatedly watched and commented on sockpuppet investigations, so he could track this case and attempt to weigh in through another account. Bon's involvement in SPI Thomas B (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I have no other accounts (even valid alts). OP's compounding their error with silly WP:ASPERSIONS is not great. They have been alerted to the extra care that's needed for WP:CTOPs and should heed the notice. Bon courage (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is not case to made here. Two editors of long standing sharing a viewpoint on an article they have both edited previously is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attention to this issue. With respect, you are misstating the evidence. There is obviously no issue with two editors sharing a viewpoint. As stated above, the evidence here involves the timing of edits on the talk page. After an informal suggestion for a third opinion, the discussion was abandoned by one user. A second user (who had never edited or commented on the page before) appeared moments later with a very curt reply. If this were simply "two editors share a view" I agree there would be no case. That is not the allegation. --Thomas B (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing presented here is indicative of sockpuppetry. Frankly, this looks far more like an attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint than anything else. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't done in bad faith, that you mistakenly believe that there is sockpuppetry here. However, you'd be well advised to back down, as this case is plainly without merit. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all people who have had a discussion about an article are trying to suppress the other side, please do assume good faith. It appeared like a striking baton hand-off to me, but I accept that I may have been mistaken. A simple check could have exonerated all parties and removed any doubt.
 * I would only urge that you should consider timing analysis as evidence in other cases, if not this one. We use it consistently in cybersecurity investigations where it produces useful, verifiable results.
 * I understand that this case is resolved in any event. Thank you for your time. --Thomas B (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your acceptance that you "may have been" mistaken, together with a call for assuming your good faith, is a classic of the genre. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When you provided up-to-the-second responses to all my replies, then simply disappeared, only to be replaced by another editor who shared similarities to your writing style, and also proceeded to provide up-to-the-second responses to all my replies, while you suddenly did not... Surely you can at least imagine what led to my confusion. Now that this is resolved, I wish you all the best, and I truly hope we can move on. --Thomas B (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This case is closed, I would gently counsel the editors above that nothing more needs to be said here. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)