Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ejmarten/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jerzeykydd
Recently, I have engaged into an edit war with User:Ejmarten in the article:United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. This has been going on since August 27th. After we kept reverting our edits over and over again, I decided to request page protection (link). I simply said that there was an intense edit war, and User:Stifle in response said "I have a better idea. The next one of either of the two of you who reverts the page gets blocked for 24 hours. How's that?"


 * After, 71.175.195.246 first started to make edits on wikipedia on August 29th, and made the same exact edits as Ejmarten.


 * Another IP, 67.184.83.208 first started on August 18th. In addition, his comment "The 5% rule is made up. The five pillars of Wikipedia state that content should be encyclopedic and neutral. There are four candidates on the ballot. That is factual information" is similar to Ejmarten's previous statement "...Saying that he needs to have recieved more than 5% in a non-inclusive (and non authoritative) poll violates the five pillars of wikipedia and is not a neutral requirement..."


 * As far as the CheckUser is concerned, Ejmarten falls under the category of 3RR violation using socks and/or Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents. Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I logged in when editing. Not all users behind one of my firewalls did. If I were going to commit sock puppetry, I would use a proxy.

Whether or not I violated the 3 edit rule, I did engage in an edit war. I understand that it was bad juju. However my actions were only undoing edits where there were no citations given for the change, and no attempt at justification was made. Ejmarten (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
CUs do not generally link IP addresses to accounts per WMF policy. The IPs don't even geolocate to the same geographical region. One's in the Midwest and the other is in the Mid-Atlantic.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 23:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is related in any way. There are too many differences. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that, especially since at one point the 71.x address undid an edit by the 67.x address; it doesn't make any sense. As to Ejmarten and 67.x, maybe, but I personally don't think it's close enough to block. Note that I haven't CU'd anything, per Elockid's comments above. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to say the exact same thing. I have asked Ejmarten to comment here. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While a connection is possible, it's inconclusive, and Ejmarten has been put on notice of the impropriety of these actions. Ejmarten recognizes the problems associated with edit warring and a block at this point, were it conclusive that a connection existed, does not appear to be preventative. Closing without prejudice against reopening this case with more evidence. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)