Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INic/Archive

16 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User INic is involved in an Edit Warring with me with one revision per day from September 14, 2014 up to now. Evidence: this history page. Although the subject is discussed in the Talk page, yesterday we both received a 3RR warning and this seems to triggered INic to apply unfair tactics. In the Talk page of the same article there are only three users discussing the subject for a long time: INic, Martin Hogbin and me (Caramella1). Suddenly today a new user account was created named Perswapish and he/she is the ONLY supporter of INic's opinion. Evidence. Under these evidences I believe that INic and Perswapish are the same person, so please investigate this. Update: New user Perswapish reverted my last edit just 46 minutes after it was done. This is a strong evidence that it was reverted by the same person (INic) without the risk to violate the 3RR rule. Caramella1 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New evidence presented today that INic and Perswapish is the same person: In this section Perswapish uses the expression “Random Primary Source”. In this section INic uses the expression “randomly chosen author” referring to the author that wrote the source Perswapish is mentioning. I think that it is very improbable two different persons to use the same expression "random" referring to the same author-source when the author and the source are not random at all! Caramella1 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another evidence: In this section INic writes: "Then we have Perswapish and myself who thinks the overall structure of the current article is OK as it is.". So he uses suspected puppet Perswapish to support his opinion. Notice how INic's and Perswapish's opinions coincide completely. Also in this section he writes: "My view is in total agreement with Perswapish." Caramella1 (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The allegations are perfectly whimsical. The term "random" is a common word in English and cannot be construed as it has been. The fact that two editors agree on a certain point does not furnish evidence of sockpuppeting. I request that these blocks be lifted immediately. Tkuvho (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The above comment by user Tkuvho was posted the same date and time with the unblock request by user INic. Probably Tkuvho is just another account used or controlled by INic and his intentions are to cheat Wikipedia's administrators again. Caramella1 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Yeah, same edits, same writing style as well, pretty obviously a duck here. Will block sock; length of block for master to be determined. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the unblock requests, I ran a checkuser, and the accounts are ❌. However, the following accounts are to.


 * (list of accounts removed)


 * Based on 's latest unblock request, he is saying these are legitimate alternative accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should probably unblock, and then discuss the situation with , who is the sockmaster of the other accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now unblocked . PhilKnight (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By now User:Caramella has accused me of being a SP of INic, as well. I would propose an indefinite block of user:Caramella for disruptive behavior and blatant violations of WP:Assume good faith. Tkuvho (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm unconvinced that a block is required, I agree with telling Caramella to stop posting at User talk:INic. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, legit alternate accounts? Maybe (I didn't see that), PhilKnight, and thanks for taking care of matters--BUT! if they're edit warring over the same content the use of those accounts is illegitimate. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no overlap between the accounts, so they're legitimate in that sense. I've left blocked, but have removed the autoblock. Hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But...this equals this. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking cross purposes. The checkuser results are that and  are ❌. However,  has half a dozen or so previously undisclosed alternate accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

28 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is the second time I start a sockpuppet investigation for user INic. The first time the verdict came from experienced admin Drmies and by his words was the following: "Yeah, same edits, same writing style as well, pretty obviously a duck here." refering to sockpuppet Perswapish whose account is blocked indefinitely since. User INic was initially blocked for 1 month but made a request for unblock and he managed it because the checkuser results didn't connect him with Perswapish.

The same day that the verdict came against INic, suspected shockpuppet Tkuvho came up and supported INic. Evidence. Also suspected shockpuppet Tkuvho came to write to INic's talk page and supported him again. Evidence. Then he came on the talk page where INic and me had a past edit war about whether or not we should include a specific paper in the references of the main article of the two envelopes problem and he supported INic's opinion in the ongoing debate. Evidence. So, user Tkuvho not only supports INic but is engaged in the same debate as INic, exactly as Perswapish has done a few days ago. Under the above evidences I think that INic is using another sockpuppet to push his opinion and this should be examined carefully even if the checkuser results show that they are unrelated. Caramella1 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here User:Caramella1's claim that I allegedly "engaged in the same edit war, etc." is in error. I never edited the Two envelopes problem page and certainly never participated in the edit war in question. Tkuvho (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You created a new section in the Two envelopes problem's talk page and you supported INic's opinion that the paper should not be included. The inclusion or not of this paper was the cause of the past edit war. So you became a part of the debate. Caramella1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well User:Caramella1, if you can't perceive the difference between participating in an edit war and participating in a debate you are unlikely to fare well at Wikipedia. Tkuvho (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. If you were an independent editor your edit would be OK. But if you are a sockpuppet your edit would be wrong. I will change the phrase "edit war" to "debate". Caramella1 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * contributions seem to be entirely on the single page Two envelopes problem and a few related paradox page. has been a long standing mathematic contributor editing a wide variety of topics and has only edited Two envelopes problem in the last day. This look a lot like  being disruptive.--Salix alba (talk): 10:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Salix alba, do you rule out the possibility that the same person has created two accounts long ago? Note that both accounts are interested in math. Caramella1 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are proposing that INic (who started editing the Two envelope problem in 2005) decided in 2009 to start an alternate account to edit all the other mathematical articles and leave the INic account for the sole purpose of edits on the Two envelope problem, with the infallible foresight that this might be handy for a bit of sockpuppeting in 2014. --Salix alba (talk): 11:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Salix alba. Note that the page Two envelopes problem is currently under lock and can only be edited by administrators. I am not an administrator. I did start a thread at Talk:Two envelopes problem to discuss the notability of a recent article that is being championed by User:Caramella1. Tkuvho (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This accusation of sockpuppetry is clear disruption. User:Caramella1 is admonished not to make any further such allegations without solid evidence.  Given that  is a single-purpose account whose sole agenda seems to be to promote a single reference of dubious provenance, which has already resulted in an edit war and multiple frivolous claims of sockpuppetry, I think an indefinite block is fully justified.  We don't need this.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sławomir Biały speak for yourself. Don't use "we don't need this". Just say "I don't need this". This page is for sockpuppet investigations so that is exactly what I am asking. The first investigation I asked proved justified by admin Drmies, so my claims are not "frivolous" at all. I am trying to defend myself against unfair methods. This is my right! Caramella1 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editing is a privilege, not a right. So far, your edits have done nothing but been serially disruptive in order to advance a clear agenda of pushing fringe WP:OR into the project.  We, as in, Wikipedia, has no use for disruptive editors such as yourself.  Why should the project put up with you?  Have you anything useful to contribute here?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have contributed an explanation to the two envelopes problem cited on a published source that is not OR. Read the talk page carefully before making accusations about OR. Also, if you read the talk page you will see that I am willing to help to make this article better altogether with other clarifications also. I had no time to contribute anything else since I am a relatively new editor and I spend all of my energy trying to defend my contribution against unfair methods. Caramella1 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be clarified that User:Caramella1's claim that "The first investigation I asked proved justified by admin Drmies" is misleading. In fact, User:Caramella1's first investigation alleged that User:Perswapish is an SP for User:INic. By now all have agreed that this was a whimsical claim, and User:INic has been unblocked. The sum total of User:Caramella1's contributions here so far has been to waste valuable time of both administrators and other editors, as well as aggressively promoting an obscure article at Two envelopes problem that most editors have agreed is unnotable. Tkuvho (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)