Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Citionthehill/Archive

Report date April 27 2009, 10:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

These three (new) editors are arguing the same side of a dispute on Moors and Talk:Moors. The original dispute appears to have begun with one of these accounts. Other parties keep insisting that these accounts are sockpuppets and confirmation or exoneration will aid in moving the discussion forward. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Mufka (u) (t) (c)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

It seems that I am being called a sock by the editor Who continues to temper with the article moors see disuss. [] because I am challenging the statement that he and CERTAIN other editors made to the article. A statement that many many others have disputed and reverted. There is really not anything I can do so, I leave to do the Administrators to investigate.69.126.251.101 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that voiced the sockpuppetry suspicion. All 3 usernames in question seem to quack quite in the same manner, to say the least. It may be significative that 69.126.251.101 made the same mistake about my name (here)that Citionthehill did here (use of "The orge " instead of "The Ogre"). They all seem to edit in alternation, and the registered users, who are quite new, do seem to know their way around, and have almost identical contribs lists as well as edits.
 * Comments by other users

User:Collounsbury has said "it has been clear from the past few months that someone is sockpuppeting to edit something they do not like (the Not Negro quote), as new editors (I believe going back to November 08, going on memory) with precisely the same obsession and style keep coming in and removing."

User:Causteau agrred with Collounsbury adding "there definitely appears to be some sockpuppeting going on. The IPs involved in the dispute, for one, are very similar to the 69.118.72.18 anonymous IP linked to the User:Nillarse & User:ProfXY accounts that were recently blocked over edits pertaining to this very issue & article."

I may add that the present suspects edits are also very similar to Tromboneman0.

Let's resolve this issue and go on to substantive discussions about what's in dispute, please. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Collounsbury Comment Well, I was noticing a consistent pattern myself, but was far too lazy to do anything and I also noted similarity with Nillarse edits. Without a look up tool of course I can't go any further than concurring with the cited users showing a highly similar pattern. I also note that I opened up a potential discussion for compromise (in re esp. the citation so dislike by the person in questoin), and had no takers. I believe that is ample evidence of bad faith. (collounsbury (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Added obs, the key obs in my view is the non-response to the opening of a discussion back in Feb, although the edits continued.


 * Note: Collounsbury, Causteau and Tromboneman0 have been invited to participate in this debate. The Ogre (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a debate. Whilst other users are welcome to add further evidence that is pertinent, can we avoid opinion, please. Mayalld (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought I was doing... The Ogre (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed you have. I was concerned about your choice of words above, where you say you have invited other users to participate in "this debate". The one thing that is certain to make a case drag on for 10 times as long as necessary is people treating it as a debate. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Wrong choice of words! What I meant was that, since I mentioned them, I gave them a friendly note saying they might be interested in checking this page. I did not mention debate in their respective talk pages. I'll correct my note above. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I can't say for certain here, therefore I am taking no action. The suspected master has no edit summary usage, which differs from the two suspected socks. The IP has some varied usage but the style of writing is different. The other account has some odd consistent quirks in summaries which do not appear elsewhere. Obviously this is not conclusive, but this is not a conclusive case. If you feel abusive sockpuppetry is continuing, and the evidence is strongly in favour of a check, feel free to request checkuser attention. Until then, the evidence suggests to me that they are indeed two or three different people. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions