Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FCYTravis/Archive

06 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Engaging in edit warring over the Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary article. Suspected sock claims me to be invalidly removing tags "of another editor", even though the issues originally brought up have been fully addressed. Has since abused two accounts and his IP address to get his point across at on the talk page.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Not a sockpuppet - waiting for the accounts to be merged and I inadvertently forgot to log out from the other one. FCYTravis (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, you're using two accounts and claiming to be two different editors. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I have never claimed to be two people. See Changing usernames/Usurpation. In fact, I've made a public request to combine the accounts. You really are making all sorts of unfounded accusations about me, aren't you? polarscribe (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tosh, you're using two accounts and claiming to be two different editors. You said 'removing tags placed by another editor', clearly you're now trying to cover up your sock puppetry. He is a disgruntled rogue ex- admin by his own admission now resorting to sock puppetry to get his own way, pretending that he has mass support over an issue which has actually been rectified anyway if he cared to reread the article. This is evidence of sock puppetry, you confess to being the same editor as you know a check user will reveal you to indeed be guilty but you claimed to be a different editor; Polarscribe added the tags originally here, and you claimed in the edit summary that another editor had added those tags. ♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the clear indication of the timestamp, at 17:25 UTC I acknowledged existence of the two accounts and requested that they be merged into one. I have not further edited the article in question, and will not do so until the accounts are merged and the situation is settled. polarscribe (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, your characterization of me as a "disgruntled rogue ex-admin" is a textbook example of a personal attack and I strongly request that you retract it. polarscribe (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment He revealed himself as the other account and combined contributions are all now under Polarscribe, not under the FCYTravis name anymore. There's nothing to accomplish here, and this is a waste of time to be investigating this. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  22:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Please do not make any blocks yet, as this appears to have been a collection of mistakes rather than abusive sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was a reference to himself in the third person. There does not appear to have been any intent to deceive (see here for more information). Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Passing comment I'm sorry to say that there is some very dodgy reasoning there ER! Referring to himself in the third person? That's highly dubious reasoning that pushes credibility a little too far, I'm afraid, as I suspect you know all too well. I wonder how many other people would have got away with such a spurious defence. Shameful. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Now you show up here, too? Perhaps I should suggest a sockpuppet investigation on you and Dr. Blofeld, seeing as you "just happened" to show up to the same edit war. polarscribe (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And once again, perhaps you'd like to stop the ad hominem comments. Unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are WP:uncivil: perhaps you could remember that when dealing with others. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, can we all just calm down here? If Schro has evidence to suggest the "reasoning" is unclear, please provide it.  If there's some kind of issue that needs to be unearthed, let's hear it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi RM, the info is all here, it's just RE's reasoning that seems to have been slightly misdirected here. If an editor puts in an edit summary "removing tags placed by another editor", it is hardly likely that they are referring to themselves unless there is some form of schizophrenia involved. The plain simple English can't really be read any other way except that the editor was deliberately trying to mislead that there was more than one person involved here. The article isn't anything to do with me and I'm not really bothered one way or the other, but I did put a stop to some silliness on the page earlier and followed up. I was struck here by RE's reasoning as being particularly dodgy on this occasion. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "another editor" could be referring to himself. "Another", in that case, would be referring to somebody besides Dr. Blofeld. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of all the people in the world, pretty much only the Queen refers to herself in the third person ... although it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that it truly is Liz II editing in her spare time. I think you're taking a rather twisted interpretation of someone who has deliberately set out to deceive. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)