Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DancingPhilosopher/Archive

Report date March 13 2009, 15:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK
 * DancingPhilosopher posts a link to an edit by SloContributorSince2005, citing it as his own history.
 * SloContributorSince2005 replies to DancingPhilosopher's block.
 * SloContributorSince2005 admits to "sockpippetry".

Note I am not sure whether a CheckUser will be necessary to identify any further socks. At the time of writing, DancingPhilosopher has been blocked for 24h for disruption and I will block SloContributorSince2005 if there's any sign that that account is being used likewise. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

all blocked Mayalld (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

13 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The accounts write about the same topic (Italian war crimes), edit the same talk pages, and from the same point of view, the two registered accounts both mention the same BBC documentary. This means "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" and "Avoiding scrutiny", and "Editing logged out in order to mislead", as described at WP:ILLEGIT. Eleassar my talk 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Not much love for this case. And I'm undecided what to do as well.
 * 1) Regarding named account, an interest in the same topics is by itself no evidence that the accounts are operated by the same person. Both writing about the same 23-year-old documentary at roughly the same time sure seems strange though. On the other hand they only overlap on one page, at Talk:Slovene Partisans, which is quite marginal, and the topic of that section is not really meaningful enough that I would consider it particularly problematic. Eleassar, I assume you have looked at their edits for quite a bit longer than I have, do you consider their writing to be similar?
 * I do, that's why I've reported it here. Currently, the editor's work is not problematic. --Eleassar my talk 19:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see I would tend to AGF at this point and see how this develops. Amalthea 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Regarding the IP, people sometimes edit while logged out, for various reasons. It depends on the circumstances whether this is seen a a problem. As far as I can tell the IP hasn't commented on talk pages, hasn't edit warred, or hasn't otherwise acted in a way to "deceive or disrupt". Is there any evidence to show that the edits are disruptive or even problematic?
 * The IP has not made an edit since 13 March, and I am not seeing enough to conclude that DancingPhilosopher and Justice and Reason are the same user. No action taken. --MuZemike 18:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)