Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kohelet/Archive

21 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

At User talk:Kohelet, even while requesting unblock, Kohelet has been adamant that Jews such as Kafka cannot be considered Czech. (In his unblock: "Secondly, as a person of Czech descent, I corrected some misinformation in the article about Czechs. I deleted Jews, because Jews aren't Czechs - that's an undisputable fact.") This is in spite of evidence that Kafka became a Czech citizen in 1918 at the end of the Austrian empire. In Kohelet's view, it seems that merely being Jewish disqualifies him. User:Liongrande, a rather new account, has been continuing that dispute with many of the same arguments. This led to the article Czechs being [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=604827591#User:Der_Golem_reported_by_User:Liongrande_.28Result:_Protected.29 fully protected for a month]. The discussions at User talk:Kohelet suggest an interest in racial topics, a desire to quote from probably racist websites (colorofcrime.com) and some past objections to his editing. He was indef blocked in February 2014 by User:Floquenbeam for POV-pushing as a result of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828. Now Liongrande's opponent in the dispute at Czechs was User:Der Golem. The latter suggested to me that Liongrande was a sock and after he added some new information at Talk:Czechs I thought it was solid enough to file here. The continuation of the Kafka argument is the most distinctive overlap between the two accounts. Liongrande created his account on April 10, which is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czechs&diff=603571817&oldid=603571471 the same day that Talk:Czechs was semiprotected] by User:JamesBWatson. The revert war at Czechs has extra significance because disputes about nationality in Eastern Europe fall under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While the detailed report is appreciated, it will need to be used to evaluate the likelihood of socking on a behavioural basis as the account noted as the master is .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide more diffs to build your case, as WP:DUCK is really the only basis on which we can block. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence, as KOH says. Closing. Please re-file if you have more evidence to provide. AGK  [•] 13:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)