Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gollymolly1010/Archive

Evidence submitted by Neutralhomer
All of these accounts have edited to Alex Lambert and/or Articles for deletion/Alex Lambert (2nd nomination) pages. They all seem to be single purpose accounts and with the exception of one, none have been used for any other purpose. I feel this is a sockfarm and other socks are involved, but not sure whom the sockpuppeteer is. I would like a CU run on these accounts to see if they are related. I feel the IPs will come up as not related because they are from different points in the globe (first two in Greece, third in CT, and fourth in IL...but they could be proxies also). But I do feel the named accounts are related.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All suspected socks have been notified of this thread. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly so someone please correct me if I need to make changes to this entry. I can state that the two IPs from Greece are indeed mine, but not in an attempt at sockpuppetry: the first IP is my work address and the second is from home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneek (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you failed to get my article deleted (which you retracted), so now you accuse me of being a sock puppet, meat puppet or whatever? If any admin wants to check my ip address they are more than welcome. My username GollyMolly1010 will match up with IP 98.214.102.58 aka editing logged in and logged out. I'm pretty sure that's not illegal. Also, forgive me for working on one article to completion and not taking more time to edit things I don't care about. Regards Wikipedia, some people here are not very accepting and said accuser is relentless on making my time here the most difficult it can be. Thanks to HJ Mitchell and Giftiger wunsch who are the only two people who actually tried to help me learn instead of sending me to the gallows. Also, thanks to whomever added 86 sources to the article, that's amazing. That's what Wikipedia should be about, helping others and not trying to knock them down. I look forward to Neutralhomer's apology, but I will not be holding my breath, nor will I be editing any other articles, but the current one. So if that's against Wikipedia policy forgive me. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That was me who added them, and you're welcome. For the record, I was moved to add them solely due to Neutralhomer's clear persecution of the article and/or user gollymolly1010. The points raised against the article may have been valid, but if so Neutralhomer should also have directed his or her attention to many of the other entries for the American Idol season 9 contestants, as the problems raised (such as use of fansites or blogs as references, or in many cases complete lack of references) apply to their articles as well, and to an even greater extent. I suspect a personal bias against the subject of the article was at play here. And I also think it best that I stick to editing articles whose subjects I know something about, at risk of being accused of having an SPA... I don't think Wikipedia would appreciate the contributions I have to make to, say, organic chemistry or applied mathematics. If Neutralhomer is so versatile as to be able to do so, she/he has my congratulations. --Kaneek (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And a final note of explanation, which will hopefully save you all from wasting your time further looking into this matter. No one directed or "farmed" (if that's the term) me to come here. I did see elsewhere a brief mention that a Wikipedia page for the subject had been written, which led me here, but there was no mention of the fact that it was up for deletion, nor request for people to comment on it or edit it. I discovered the situation myself upon arriving and decided to act of my own volition. I suspect the same holds true for the other accounts accused of being sockpuppets. Had people actually been directed to support the article, I think the number of comments would have numbered in the thousands, due to the unique history of the subject (which you can now learn about by reading the article). --Kaneek (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Very suspicious. These could very well be proxies, but coudl a CU look for any connection between accounts/any farms? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is.
 * All others are . I wouldn't go as far as to say they are unrelated, given the editing patterns, but none of them share a similar useragent or similar IP.
 * No comment with respect to the listed IPs. Tiptoety  talk 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing case, no action has been taken. –MuZemike 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)