Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fortresslinux/Archive

Evidence submitted by Aladdin Sane
I'm not sayin' there's any evidence of sockpuppetery. The point I'm trying to make, albeit very poorly, is that the last three accounts listed above are being used to get around a spam block of the first account. My admittedly poor understanding of what sockpuppetry is leads me to believe that this is mere "abuse of multiple accounts to get around a spam block to make spam stick to Wikipedia" rather than sockpuppetry. I'm merely unclear about the distinction.

However, this post to SPI is being made under the kindly guidance of administrator MLauba, such guidance may be viewed at User_talk:Aladdin_Sane.

The sockpuppetry assertion is made at User_talk:80.101.112.71 by an editor other than myself.

The spam block of User:Fortresslinux was made by an administrator.

I am very concerned that the three non-blocked accounts (note: for the purposes of this post an IP address is an account) can be used for sockpuppetry now that the article in question (Fortress Linux) has gone up for an AfD. I can't, in good conscience, do my part in the AfD until I've expressed my concerns to the wider community, and apparently this is the right place to do that.

My evidence falls under WP:DUCK. The behavior of the four accounts is always the same, in that the text added to Wikipedia is always exactly the same (copy and paste from the www.fortresslinux.org marketing web site) and fell under WP:COPYVIO (in the article Fortress Linux, deleted version 2 and deleted version 1 I believe), until it didn't anymore, then it fell under WP:SPAM without any effort to show WP:SOURCES, WP:V, etc. and will probably never make it to WP:GNG because in the end once all the WP:PEACOCKing, etc., has been removed, you end up with an article that consists of a single period. The point being, in the case where all the other extreme problems with the article are resolved, you still wind up without any WP:N in the end. (Of course the editor(s) would need to make a start on getting past WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:COI before even getting started on fixing the article.)

My behavioral evidence comes from watching the edit history of List of Linux distributions for the last month. On or about Oct 1 the entry for Fortress Linux was removed from the article, and the account that created it and the article on which the entry was based forthwith blocked. These prior edits have all contained the exact same peacocking, without any evidence of substantiation (by definition no Linux distribution is "without precedent" since the precedents (derivation) are the whole point that let people create multiple distributions, and a distribution cannot at the same time be "built from scratch" and based on "Slackware, Hardened Linux From Scratch, Zenwalk, Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, NetBSD and FreeBSD" (this rises rather rapidly to WP:WEASEL)).

The evidence here is referential. Watching List of Linux distributions led me to look at the Fortress Linux article. All I saw was, somebody keeps adding a lot of marketing and "it keeps getting deleted" for significant encyclopedic reasons. That leads me back to the "highly questionable and relatively blatant inaccurate marketing statements" made in List of Linux distributions. This leads me back to the accounts making the edits that sound "highly dubious".

The four accounts in question haven't made any other edits except to the two articles cited (as of this date). It's rather scary looking at those edit logs how many times these editors/this editor have removed other editors tags (and entire pages) without good editorial justification. This behavior, to me, is "way over the top".

It concerns me that User:Fortresslinux never tried to follow the instructions to have the account unblocked. It smells of "what else is out there" related to this, and calls the credibility of the other accounts in to question.

To add more evidence, I would need to see the delete logs of the two past versions of the Fortress Linux article, a feat I am apparently unable to accomplish. I therefor leave it to those with more powers to investigate the edit history and talk pages of the deleted versions of the actual article to see the previous complaints made there.

Nonetheless, all this falls outside the scope of WP:WikiSloth, and I'd like to get on with it, after merely pointing out these asserted facts about these accounts for further research. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I endorse the description of recent events by User:Aladdin Sane insofar the edits to Fortress Linux is concerned, on the surface, Bakker75 and Johan82 appear to be meat- or sockpuppets. I have not been witness to the earlier events on List of Linux distributions, however. MLauba (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ✅ - the following accounts:



- A l is o n  ❤ 05:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got 'em. —  Jake   Wartenberg  07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)