Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dlull1/Archive

Report date August 17 2009, 22:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Alanyst

User:Dlull1 uploaded File:Two_mormon_missionaires.jpg and added it to Missionary (LDS Church). Some established editors removed it on grounds that it did not depict the subject of the article and was possibly a vanity photo. The several accounts above, all new and with no contributions outside the article or its talk page, have restored the photo and/or voiced support for it on the talk page.

If these are indeed all coming from the same individual or small group of friends, in the spirit of WP:BITE I recommend that they not be blocked at this point -- just cordially informed about the sockpuppet policy and given a chance to change direction -- as I suspect this is just a newbie who doesn't get the purpose of Wikipedia quite yet. alanyst /talk/ 22:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what the big deal is. I posted a picture or two guys pretending to be missionaries in the popular culture section and explained how people sometimes dress up as missionaries for fun to go to costume parties, etc.Dlull1 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Let me make myself perfectly clear, I posted a picture of two guy pretending to be missionaries in the popular culture section. Then some people got mad and quickly removed it because they were wearing "forbidden" clothing. I explained how this picture was supposed to be a satire and how it has became popular for young people to dress up as missionaries for costume parties and social gatherings, dances etc. Now I am accused of breaking every wikipedia law. It seems to me like a select group of editors own this page and that no one can edit without being bombarded with accusations.Dlull1 (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims. :Jesus, you people are really hardcore about this, I didn't even know these other people, I was just trying to get started on Wikipedia editing. If you guys are that hardcore against what I thought was good fluff, then fine, I won't bother arguing over such a minuscule thing as a picture on the internet. Just calm down about it, it's just the internet. Imon87 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since we have two of the users now making independent comments here, it would be helpful if we could confirm whether or not this is a case of sockpuppetry. To me it looks fairly clear-cut, but I'd prefer to be proven wrong. The users aren't doing anything that would convince me it's not sockpuppetry, but a negative CU would. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

I wrote out a warning and left it at each of the talk pages. Let's leave this open for a few days and see if the behavior continues. — Jake   Wartenberg  23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for checkuser. The case is clear-cut, IMO, but the users are claiming otherwise. Per Good Ol'factory. NW ( Talk ) 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The accounts and related IPs are distinctly seperate and in different, but close geographic regions. I'd say with a slight chance of meat puppet. Brandon (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While meatpuppetry still seems quite possible here given the behavioral evidence and "close geographic regions", the accounts seem to have stopped editing now, so given this I think we'll just let sleeping dogs lie. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions