Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E.G./Archive

08 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:GameOn has accused me at the Swedish Wikipedia of being the same person as Pinut, because I happened to support the same consensus on Talk:Municipal council (Sweden) (there is a link there to the Swedish case). This could not be checked at the Swedish Wikipedia, so I was recommended to go here. I want to be free from these allegations. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-clerk note: Not sure that anything can be done here, the English Wikipedia CheckUser policy states: "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon his or her request, especially to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such requests are not accepted on the English Wikipedia." - Nonetheless, all CheckUser information expires after 3 months, which would've been June, and Pinut's last edit was in May. You're not requesting CheckUser, though, so can you explain what exactly you'd like done? Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what CheckUser acctually is, but I want the IP addresses checked. Too bad I didn't have time to do this earlier, I had no idea about the three month rule you are talking about. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is the tool that shows IPs. Your request more than likely won't be fulfilled because of the excerpt of the policy above. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 16:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're telling the truth about not being Pinut, then it would be a pretty gross breach of Pinut's privacy to have his IP information looked into without any evidence to suggest he warrants investigating, don't you think? We all face criticism and opposition in debate, I don't think SPI is the best place to go for a "stamp" of approval". Just rise above the ad hominems and move on. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Pinut is actually being associated as a sock of who is checkuser-confirmed for socking here...that is who GameOn is accusing Mr. Atom Scania of being in the Swedish case. Other accused parties as socks of E.G. are:



There is a related SPI case and also leaving two more related links for reference:


 * Previous EG Sock case at sv.wiki
 * Previous ANI case

Although this case appears to be opened for reasons not supported on English Wikipedia, it still may need to be investigated further. I would like to let the blocking admin of EG look at this and will leave a note on their talk page. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So. First, as far as I can tell only two of the newly blocked E.G. socks at svWP were actually SUL accounts:
 * It's unlikely they will ever edit here. Nonetheless, while I did not investigate the circumstances that led to the block of E.G., if he wants to edit here he should request an unblock with his original account, so they should be blocked as block-evading accounts,
 * Like indicated above, we generally don't perform checks if someone asks to prove his innocence, for many reasons. In this case we couldn't if we wanted to since the required data is stale. Any conclusions would have to be drawn based on behavior, but I see no reason for anyone to try and do so: Simply agreeing with another users position is far from sufficient proof for abuse of multiple accounts, and in absence of anything further, I see no problem here in the first place. It is not necessary for you to prove your innocence, and I assume WP:AGF is an important principle at svWP as well. Unsubstantiated allegations are meaningless and not constructive. Ignore them (especially now, 6 months later), and if they keep being raised, ask your admins to intervene. Amalthea  11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely they will ever edit here. Nonetheless, while I did not investigate the circumstances that led to the block of E.G., if he wants to edit here he should request an unblock with his original account, so they should be blocked as block-evading accounts,
 * Like indicated above, we generally don't perform checks if someone asks to prove his innocence, for many reasons. In this case we couldn't if we wanted to since the required data is stale. Any conclusions would have to be drawn based on behavior, but I see no reason for anyone to try and do so: Simply agreeing with another users position is far from sufficient proof for abuse of multiple accounts, and in absence of anything further, I see no problem here in the first place. It is not necessary for you to prove your innocence, and I assume WP:AGF is an important principle at svWP as well. Unsubstantiated allegations are meaningless and not constructive. Ignore them (especially now, 6 months later), and if they keep being raised, ask your admins to intervene. Amalthea  11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)