Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Forty.4/Archive

18 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Forty.4 is involved in a dispute on Talk:Ceschi with and me. It seems transparent that the IP who has made no other edits showed up in that dispute agreeing with 44 is in fact 44, having made his/her first edit restoring the material 44 wanted in the article 29 minutes after 44's last comment on the talk page.
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

It's clear that this wasn't a case of accidentally editing while logged out because the IP referred to 44 in his/her comments.

The Dissident Aggressor 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Forty.4 has been subsequently blocked "for personal attacks, an unfortunate battleground attitude and incivility" by FreeRangeFrog. The Dissident Aggressor 05:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Even if that was me, since the content is not controversial, there would be no need for me to log out to edit it. I've continued to make edits along the same lines after those IP edits were made, and I was about to make those exact edits before the IP editor did so.
 * 2) Even if I had made those edits while logged out, making logged out edits is allowed, and it's no reason to assume sockpuppetry - if those were my edits I would tell you, because I stand behind that content and will re-add it myself if you delete it again without engaging in the discussion, ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CON, as you did before.
 * 3) If you were confident that the content should be removed, and that you could support this by appeal to policy and/or precedent, then you would be able to respond to the points myself and this alleged 'sockpuppet' have made, but you're not, so you haven't. And this spurious allegation is your substitute for not getting your way in the dispute. I would suggest you assume good faith.
 * 4) The IP editor is located in Japan, I am in Ireland. In all likelihood it's the same person from Japan who frequently edits these leftfield underground hip hop articles.
 * 5) The IP editor went to the trouble of sourcing links for all of the guest appearances, most of which I then removed. Why would I do that when I had already argued that no such sources were necessary? The IP editor also addressed me by name, as you've noted. Your allegation here is therefore based on the fact that it doesn't look like the IP is a sockpuppet. Your evidence is nothing but the evidence to the contrary. By which standard any logged out editor or new account who took my side in that dispute would appear to you to be a sock. In reality, when you go around making capricious and destructive edits to articles about fairly well-known musicians (underground or not), offering no justification but your own feelings (no policy, no precedent, no argument), some people are going to turn up who disagree with you. Quelle surprise.
 * 6) You seem to be very quick to fly off the handle and make unfounded accusations (oops!). It seems to be your first resort, in fact. Maybe breathe and think before launching petty litigations like this in the future.
 * Thanks for wasting my time. - Forty.4 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I have to agree with User:Forty.4 because after reading the whole incident I am very convinced that the IP is not a sock puppet. Gameroffun (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing this case becouse if the lack of evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)