Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoneWithThePuffery/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
The presumed sockmaster confessed at Talk:Snell's law to be this IP, and additionally, sevral IPs and brand new accounts are suddenly interested in Snell's law and edit this article in a similar way. Please see, , where IP/GonewithPuffery edited the same part of the article in a similar  way than Thony C :  and Casteiswrong : ,  within few days. Now than Casteiswrong is blocked for edit-warring for 3 days, their presumed socks are back at it at Talk;Snell's law. Sounds quite duckish. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Thank you for handling this case. I was wrong, not the first time I've been wrong about this kind of thing, probably won't be the last. As to your remarks about my behaviour, with all due respect, I already said that I have no problem with discussing the matter with Gone at Talk:Snell's law, however, you might have missed this, which seems to show that Gone isn't as blameless as you seem to think (even if they are not a sock, granted), is it ?  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did, but I also saw this. OK, so they're angry and a bit arrogant, but they were accused by two people, maybe three, of socking, so I understand. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Here is what I think: none of these accounts have anything to do with each other., I think you are jumping to conclusions, and Casteiswrong is trying to write Ibn-Sahl out of the article , when the IP/Gone is looking for a more full historical treatment that gives credit to Ibn-Sahl (even while removing it as a name for the law). Anyway, all these are technically unrelated and unlikely bordering on the impossible. But Caste is, I believe, specifically created to harass User:Hu741f4 (and there is a technical detail), going back a while by way of this edit, but right now only Hu can explain this. Wikaviani, I strongly encourage you to be more...welcoming/collegial/collaborative on that talk page. I understand your suspicion, a bit, but an apology for your strong accusations on that talk page would go a long way toward improving the atmosphere. As for Casteiswrong--they're blocked, for now, and maybe has ideas here. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When I took administrative action to do a status quo ante rollback on Snell's law, it was in response to edit warring by, who had been attempting to force in a change by repeated reverts (i.e., edit warring). I did not see obvious sockpuppetry at the time. I don't see any intentional abuse of multiple accounts, although I do see where there was apparently accidental editing while logged out by . GWTP has acknowledged that they made the edits while logged out, so that's no harm, no foul. (And as for ) I agree with Drmies' conclusion that the accounts named aren't related; I myself haven't seen behavioural evidence.One other thought: consider this comment by me to GWTP, about not seeing their edits. This was also a subtle way to invite them to take ownership of any logged-out edits without pointing a finger. (The other approach would have been to say "I don't see where you edited, so you must have been sockpuppeting," but that wasn't the aggressive course I wanted to take.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks --I appreciate your comment. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think GoneWithThePuffery is connected to either of the named accounts. Any logged-out editing they did was accidental, and they have acknowledged it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)