Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Promotes the same images that Hogeye apparently authored and promoted in the past, with intersections like at individualist anarchism. The sockmaster is old but known to have created various accounts and to have used proxies. Checkuser was not requested as known previous accounts seem stale. Please see this ANI discussion for various interesting links (permalink). If one of the old accounts eventually successfully appealed for a cleanstart I missed it. My impression is that the behavioral evidence seems convincing enough to file this. Some of the links are to old sockpuppetry investigation cases, before this system existed. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

PhilLiberty has after uploading their diagram. BeŻet (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * So, PL admits to being Hogeye Bill per BeZet. Hogeye admitted to being Hogeye Bill here. They have apparently identical POVs on anarcho-capitalism. The PL account was created 11 days after the Hogeye account was indeffed. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.More complex is the policy question. The community has recently signaled a distaste for applying "blocks/bans apply to the person" to cases where users have edited without issue for years after their indef. For instance, see the Hatto case. Policy is meant to follow community consensus, not prescribe it, and it seems we're in a situation where policy may be lagging a bit behind consensus. The wiki is getting older, and we're dealing more and more with cases involving blocks from before some of our editors were born. So I don't see this as a straightforward "You're a sock, so indef" case. I also note that, while Hogeye is listed as banned on his userpage, I don't think that that's accurate. The tag was added by an IP, and does not seem to reflect consensus at, which was pro-block but not CBAN-level pro-block, at least by current standards, and was not closed as "ban".That said, unlike in the Hatto case, we have here a user who is clearly continuing the behavior that got them indeffed. They seem to have made it 16 years and 1,600 edits without tipping anyone off that they were Hogeye, but have now returned to transparently similar edits. I note that PhilLiberty has four tempblocks on their record, all relating to politics (Declaration of Independence in '08, American Revolution in '09, Oath Keepers in '19). But what decides it for me is deception. With Hatto, part of why the community objected to a sockblock was that the usernames were similar and there was no apparent attempt to deceive. However, the usernames here are unrelated, and in 2013 PhilLiberty triggered the autoblock on Hogeye somehow and requested un-autoblock without disclosing that they were the same person. jpgordon AGF'd that it was a software glitch and PhilLiberty repaid that AGF with more socking and POV-pushing. That, to me, represents an evasion of scrutiny that continued at least 7 years after the initial block, through the first three tempblocks. Combined with the subsequent and ongoing disruption, I don't think that this is a case where one can say that someone has matured in time and learned their lesson and shouldn't be punished for things that happened 16 years ago.: Please block indefinitely as a proven sockpuppet. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 17:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've removed the banned tag from the master's userpage since it does not appear to be accurate. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)