Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Byanose/Archive

18 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

After the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reversions to Whittemore Peterson Institute by a newly-created but suspiciously Wikipedia-fluent user triggered a series of warnings on the user talk page, another new account was created, One000. This account continued the edit warring and argued for the inclusion of the same language on the talk page. Both users have placed four tildes in their summaries, indicating identity or recruiting, and both users have edited only the one article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I agree with this Byanose. But this is hardly an issue as the evidence is bing discussed on the talk page. Is this what happens to everyone that joins?One000 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What does possible mean?One000 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It means there is a possible connection between your account and Byanose. There's not enough data to confirm you are the same person, but at the same time, there is enough data that it cannot be ruled out. TN X Man  15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would there be if we are not the same people?One000 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both are single purpose accounts that engage on the same articles almost exclusively. Even their style of language is exactly alike. I was going to file a sockpuppet report myself when I saw that there was already one. If the checkuser doesn't rule it out (or rule it in, I suppose), I thought that other evidence should be taken into consideration. Given the overlapping article interests (almost 95%), and the lack of exculpatory checkuser evidence, should the socks be indefinitely blocked? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have only just joined. Can't expect me to have edited every page.  As Orangemarlin is also editing the Whittemore Peterson Institute page, does that also mean that we are all the same person?  What is lack of exculpatory checkuser evidence?One000 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Distinct individuals don't just happen to join Wikipedia a few hours after another new editor is warned about 3RR and immediately start edit warring over exactly the same content using exactly the same language and quirks. As for other article interests, the user edited another article only after TerryE placed a recommendation to do so on the user's talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Two individuals joining together is just more evidence of sockpuppetry. And TerryE's trying to save you from such allegations is troublesome at best.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my late posting, but I wasn't aware that this SPI had been raised. As I was quite open stated the though that these two users were SPIs did cross my mind.  However:
 * Of course individuals can join WP and edit an article that someone else has just been given a 3RR for.
 * By OM's definition, every new joiner is an SPA until they edit their second page.
 * If you actually read the postings, then you will see that the writing style and relevant technical knowledge of these two account holders is quite different and not "exactly the same language and quirks" as Keepcalmandcarryon states.
 * I thought that WP policy was to be welcoming to newcomers and not to hit them with an SPI on pretty thin circumstantial evidence -- TerryE (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on Terry. They both joined at the same time to edit the SAME EXACT ARTICLE.  One stops, the other starts, nearly the hour after the 3RR situation arises.  Give me a break, you're much smarter than this.  If it looks like a sock, smells like a sock, and edits like a sock, it's a sock.  I'll bet the IP addresses both geolocate to Reno, NV, home of WPI, but we'll never know. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Find me another two editors who by mistake put four tildes in their edit summaries and just happen to have strong feelings, expressed in exactly the same words, about Erlwein et al. and Lo et al. These are either the same person (and probably the same as User:Wpi2011), or they were recruited together to perform agenda editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Byanose was given the 3RR warning at 20:04 on the 17th, but was never actually blocked. One000 made the 1st post at 13:28 on the 18th.  Why would B drop this userID and create another?  To me, there was no reason to do so.  B has poor punctuation and started out by attacking AR.  O correctly punctuates his/her text correctly, and makes the mistake of talking technical details as if virology trained.  I was half expecting a flame when I first reverted him/her, but instead got a reasonable talk-page challenge.  As to whether both accounts come from Nevada, only the Sock Clerk has access to that info; if so then it would be a factor, but the hypothesis isn't.  I guess that I am just trying to do what K keeps asking me to do:  AGF. -- TerryE (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith isn't very useful when you're dealing with sockpuppets. These guys are sockpuppets of the worst kind...they aren't even good at it.  If I were to sock, I'd change some things about my writing.  It's easy.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not in Nevada at allOne000 (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You're a sock.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
TN X Man 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per behavioral evidence I've blocked One000. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)