Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat/Archive

19 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Eracekat, who has never edited anything relevant, shows up at Race and Intelligence, a sock-ridden article, to add 'supposedly' and 'supposed' to text. Eracekat is reverted twice and a new editor who has only edited one other article shows up to support him. BeauPhneomene has started a discussion at WP:ANI where it has been suggested (not just by me) that this is a sock. Now perhaps he isn't and if so he should be exonerated, but sock seems the more likely explanation. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad to exonerate Eracekat.Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

My understanding is that sockpuppets are multiple accounts that belong to the same person, which that person may then use to make edits on the same article in order to give the impression of substance or to increase his or her power of overruling other editors due to the power of larger numbers.

This is not the case here. I have been editing wikipedia articles since early 2012, on several occasions on a variety of topics I have some knowledge of, as far as I recall I may have created a small number of wikipedia pages. Recently stumbled upon the race and intelligence article and made a small change that seemed to have opened a whole can of worms that I did not expect. BeauPhenomene seemed to support my suggested change on the talk page, as far as I could see he was on that talk page threatened with a ban, I spoke out against this because I do not believe people should be threatened with a ban because of disagreements over the contents of an article. Other than that there is no relation to this editor, its account belongs to a someone other than me, I am a real person, not a sockpuppet. The reversal of my change to mentioned article was subject of the discussion on the talk page which I started editing upon the request of the editor who first reversed my change to the article, events unfolding subsequently when suggested change seemed to become the topic of a major discussion and contention.Eracekat (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP seems, on AN/I at least, to be taking an opposite view to BeauPhenomene. The IP appears to have a firm grasp of dialectical logic, BeauPhenomene leaps to conclusions. The IP uses many parenthetical asides (of the type I try to avoid, but still use) - BeauPhenomene uses none.

The IP is currently labelled as a suspected sock, presumably because he posted a comment signed by BeauPhenomene. In fact that was a cut-and-paste quote of question BeauPhenomene posed elsewhere, which the IP then proceeded to answer.

Conclusion: no obvious evidence linking the IP and BeauPhenomene: CheckUser of the IP should be denied, and the IP should be unlabelled, with a polite note, and an invitation to Teahouse.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is a prima facie case established here. As well as the evidence Dougweller presented it is also somewhat telling that BeauPhenomene turned up around the same time as Eracekat twenty four hours later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is a purely technical report. But technically speaking unless if the user is using a different computer and travels intercontinentally a lot, thes users are ❌. I will disclose that the IP is ❌ to either of the named users as best as I can tell. (I didn't run a check but using data from the CU of both users there is nothing at all incriminating). NativeForeigner Talk 20:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have blocked BeauPhenomene on unrelated grounds. Eracekat can be dealt with by another administrator if they feel it is necessary; I haven't looked into their history that much. NW ( Talk ) 00:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)