Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EtienneDolet/Archive

26 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

identical edit to EtienneDolet who was hitting 3RR

ditto - together comprising the only edits for this IP since 2008

The editor EtienneDolet posted two warnings on my User Talk page indicating that he is well aware of the possibility of the edits falling under ArbCom sanctions:,   making the use of a sock on his part exceedingly likely. As the IP has made zero edits other than to exactly and precisely restore content added by Etiennedolet, the likelihood of it being a sock is very high. Collect (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I don't sock. Never have, never will. IP appears to be editing out of Britain. That's very far from where I live, to say the least. The timezones I edit are far from the timezones any British user would edit . But hey, if this somehow still merits a CheckUser, I don't mind at all. But I would have been greatly appreciated it if I was notified of this investigation on my talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm not convinced based on two edits by the IP. The first is an identical revert to EtienneDolet, but the IP is not the only one who reverted Collect - so did another named editor. The second revert is not as clear. , first, the IP's edits are hours apart, so the analysis by hours isn't determinative for me. Second, a CU will not connect an IP to a named account, so there's no point in requesting one. Third, Collect is not required to notify you of this report. Any further disruptive editing by anyone can be dealt with in the usual way, including discretionary sanctions, if appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

25 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

is an account that is very closely cooperating with following accounts. It is very strange that writes about help to  as seen here. This is a classic case of WP:DUCK. In addition, users always combine forces to punish other users and all of them appear on that pages almost nearly in same time period, which is direct case of sock puppetry.

All accounts tend to edit in the same articles:
 * 1) Guba mass grave:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:


 * 1) Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:

All accounts have displayed disruptive behavior towards Azerbaijan-related articles:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:

All accounts have displayed disruptive behavior towards Turkey-related articles:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield:

All accounts have interesed in Armenian genocide:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield:

All accounts have displayed cooperation towards one user in following talk pages:
 * EtienneDolet:
 * Ninetoyadome:
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield:  Yacatisma (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I will ask the same question here as I asked there. Are editors able to make obvious bad faith claims of sock puppetry? And are they subjected to any sanctions when their allegations are found to be false? Yacatisma is trying to play the system and muddy the water by inventing laughable allegations against the editor who initiated a spi that involves Yacatisma. Even a casual look at the edits I have made in the Armenian Genocide article and talk page should make it clear I am not in any way related to EtienneDolet! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone is grasping at straws here. I found how none of the supposed evidence claiming all three are sockpuppets has any similarities. How is me asking for help from another user related to sock puppetry? If he was a sock puppet, wouldnt i just use that account to make changes instead of asking for help? The reason i asked for assistance was due to your edit warring and me unable to revert the same thing in a week. False allegations like this should be grounds for indefinite ban.Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I find this SPI a retaliatory measure against the SPI I filed on Yacatisma a couple days ago. The layout of this SPI is almost a carbon-copy of mine. In fact, the exact wording of the section headers have been retained. These WP:BATTLEFIELD-like symptoms of the user who filed this report needs to be considered before any further judgements. As for my opinion on this SPI, it's spurious. Just because a few users may have an interest in the same topic shouldn't make those diffs viable for further investigation. In fact, I've even been in disagreement with both these users at times. For example, I disagreed over Tiptoethrutheminefield in this content-related discussion here and Ninetoyadome and I had our own set of differences here. At any rate, I don't feel that I should take this seriously. Such a waste of time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever acting innocent before the judgement.--Yacatisma (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. I agree that this is a retaliatory report. Nonetheless, I did look at some of the diffs, and they weren't convincing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)