Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josophie/Archive

30 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Roughly half of Josophie's edits are to the topic area. Both the potential socks are SPAs who have made 1 edit each to agree with Josophie to oppose a proposed move. The IP and the account Gyeffeth both made the same mistake of conflating metaphysics with mysticism/astrology:. All the accounts claim Biocentrism (theory of everything) is a scientific theory. I believe the new accounts or meatpuppets are coming to try and bump up the numbers against the move. Checkuser requested to confirm whether its sock puppetry or meatpuppetry, and to look for sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Added new ip whose only edit was to vote with the same arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Gyeffeth and rdlevinson are NOT MY ACCOUNTS in any shape or form. Just because some people disagree with you and the requested move (which is wrong) doesn't give you the right to initiate a Sockpuppetry investigation (which would prove you wrong). This is harrassment, pure and simple. IRWolfie is a senior Wiki editor, and has been abusing his experience like a hammer (i.e. anytime you disagree with him, he makes sure he uses the system to punish you. To institute this investigation is his way of punishing me (and borders on abuse).Josophie (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It looks like IRWolfie beat me to this. My arguments can be seen here but are largely the same. It's very hard to imagine there isn't puppetry of one sort or another going on here. The IP may be a different situation. It was alleged elsewhere at Talk:Biocentrism (theory of everything) that the IP may have a COI, specifically that he is Robert Lanza, the scientist who proposed the theory. That doesn't seem too farfetched given the IP's contributions. But the fact that the IP didn't vote makes me less sure. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW The one short comment atttributed to IP address 173.166.20.65 was an accident (I accidently got logged out while replying). I was horrified it happened--it will not happen again.Josophie (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is pure harrassment--Gyeffeth and rdlevinson are NOT MY ACCOUNTS in any way, shape or form (and your research will show that). This is abuse by people who don't like people disagreeing with them.Josophie (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Marmvr (contributions) also appears to be one of the sockpuppets. --31.45.148.217 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. We also be looking at meatpuppetry since that account appears to lack competence. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In your witchhunt, I'm sure you will eventually add every person who disagrees with you. This kind of abuse of Wiki experience and old-boy political influence is exactly what drives new editors away. You bully me if I dare challenge you, even if the evidence and facts suggests your wrong. You have created a hostile editing environmentJosophie (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Josophie, it's not in anyway harassment - you are the one accusing/faulting IRWolfie above for doing his job. If you really have no sockpuppets; then there is no reason to shout "NOT MY ACCOUNTS" and talk in the way you have done, is there? All you need to do is relax and watch the investigation fail. It's fairly strange that these other editors have made no contributions to other topics, and only recently joined to add disagreement to the move request... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 09:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can an admin block or mitigate against the obvious meatpuppets that are coming? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Requesting checkuser on Gyeffeth and Rdlevinson. These accounts were created back-to-back for the sole purpose of participating in the same content dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I only looked at the two accounts that were endorsed for a check, and they appear to be ❌ to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While there is most certainly meatpuppetry or offsite canvasing going on here, it's not sockpuppetry, so I'm closing this case with no action taken. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)