Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factomancer/Archive

13 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Sepsis II is clearly not a new user. Some telltale signs:
 * First 10 edits are minor wikignoming (e.g: whitespace removal/addition:  ; punctuation:  or empty ref removal ), to achieve auto-confirmed status, and edit #11 is of a semi-protected page in the IP area, which requires auto-conformed status. The first pages are never edited again.
 * Three weeks into editing, voting in AfDs:, on an article they’ve never edited before
 * 3 users (NMMNG, Brewcrewer, Epeefleche) were questioning if this is a first account. There was no response – just a removal of the questions.


 * Overlap in articles: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Factomancer&user2=Eptified&user3=Sepsis+II


 * Factomancer adds this to Hebron, on 12:44, 29 March 2010, nearly 3 years and hundreds of edits go by and no one notices the extraneous “and”, until Sepsis II removes it:

I have additional behavioral evidence that I will not post here as it will make it harder to identify future socks, but I can e-mail them to interested chuck-users Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Elockid : Factomancer may be stale, but that user is currently active as User:Eptified, which is not stale. I am puzzled by the comment that it would not be sock puppetry if it was the same person - they actively edit in the same topic area under two separate user names, in an area subject to ARBCOM sanctions, and have even edited at least one article Israeli settler violence under three differ names (Factomance, Eptified, Sepsis II) - how is this not sock puppetry?

Finally, contrary to the impression left by RolandR, the Factomancer account wasn't simply "abandoned" due to a lost password- it claimed to be leaving Wikipedia completely, during an on-going ANI proceeding against it which resulted in a 1 month block, and the blocking admin stated that if Factomancer returned, an indef topic-ban from I/P article would be appropriate(see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFactomancer&diff=393217316&oldid=393147362 ; Are we to understand that under those circumstances, he can simply create a new account (Eptified) and resume editing in the topic area as if nothing happened? Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Even if Sepsis was previously Factomancer, this is not sockpuppetry. The Factomancer account was abandoned three years ago, and has not edited since. It was blocked earlier this year to prevent abuse, after the editor reported that s/he had forgotten the password. The Sepsis account was created at the end of last year. There has been absolutely no abuse, and this report is purely vexatious, presumablly in retaliation for Sepsis's apparently well-founded sockpuppetry charge against Sissoo vesimhu above. RolandR (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * has now been indefinitely blocked as a sock of . RolandR (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Reiterating what Roland said, this is not a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Furthermore, it is not possible to run a conclusive check as Factomancer is . Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)