Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktunstill/Archive

Report date January 30 2009, 14:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The article in question is Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. The first peculiar instance edit is the use of [sic] in a revert edit summary to highlight typos in both an edit of myself and another user. Marktunstill's edit and Tanbycroft's edit. The second is the edit history of both users. Marktunstill's account has been around since Feb 07, with edits of mostly history, US presidents, WWII, and Soviet/USSR figures up until the recent dive in into al-Husayni on 29 Jan 2009. Tanbycroft made a handful of minor edits in Feb 2008, then went inactive until making a controversial edit to the al-Husayni article on 21-22 Jan 2009, then came back to the page on the 29th of January. If we look at the contribs on that day of Marktunstill and Tanbycroft, and interleave them (first initials denote the user), we get; (note these isn't the 3RR evidence, it is their edits in totality on the 29th)


 * M # 19:56, 29 January 2009
 * M # 19:55, 29 January 2009
 * M # 19:52, 29 January 2009
 * T # 19:46, 29 January 2009
 * T # 19:05, 29 January 2009
 * T # 19:00, 29 January 2009
 * T # 17:43, 29 January 2009
 * T # 17:39, 29 January 2009
 * M # 16:57, 29 January 2009
 * M # 16:51, 29 January 2009
 * M # 16:44, 29 January 2009
 * T # 15:57, 29 January 2009
 * T # 15:56, 29 January 2009
 * T # 15:51, 29 January 2009
 * T # 15:48, 29 January 2009
 * T # 15:43, 29 January 2009
 * M # 14:33, 29 January 2009
 * M # 14:22, 29 January 2009
 * M # 14:09, 29 January 2009
 * M # 13:54, 29 January 2009
 * M # 13:52, 29 January 2009

IMO, it flows rather fittingly, one account into another. If it is found to be the same person, then this was done to circumvent WP:3RR, as follows;


 * R0 - - Mark (the initial edit, just shown for chronology, I don't think you count this one for 3RR, hence "0")
 * R1 - - Mark
 * R2 - - Tanby
 * R3 - - Tanby
 * R4 - - Mark
 * R5 - - Tanby


 * Evidence submitted by Tarc (talk)

It's trivial, but only Tanbycroft and Marktunstil use the word 'nobble' in the slang sense of 'win someone over to one's side', which is, as far as I know, specific to British slang. Compare Tanbycroft Marktunstil
 * Evidence summitted by Nishidani


 * Yes, trivial is an accurate description. Marktunstill (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (I suggest you read Carlo Ginsberg's essay in Umberto Eco and Thomas A.Sebeok (eds) The Sign of the Four, Bloomington, Indiana 1983, where he argues that the interpretation of 'trivia' is the fundamental paradigm of modern humanistic epistemology. Eco uses it all over in his 'The Name of the Rose') Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See, even when I agree with you, you're not content!  As previously advised, "nobble" is Australian.  Get a grip m8. Marktunstill (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I might add that I have now presented evidence here on the relevant talk page which demonstrates that major dictionaries of British and Australian usage endorse my original remark, and give the lie to Marktunstil's assertions. Both he and Tandycroft use a word in British slang, with a meaning confined to British slang, and now the former insists that both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Australian National Dictionary are wrong. This looks like prevarication, and the fact that both users have a 'sleeper' history, appear together on a page neither had previously edited, tagteam to confirm a dubious edit, and that one of them misleads this enquiry, suggests either sockpuppetry, or some form of off-line coordination. It would be better if the distinct possibility of sockpuppetry were at least examined to clear up that side of the problem.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the accusation/claim which is alleged to arise from this theorising? ChrisO seems to be biased: kindly refer to his talk page User talk:ChrisO paragraph 61 "Concern"; I request that another admin take this forward, if it is going to be taken forward. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Marktunstill (talk â¢ contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Yes it was, apologies for the omission.Marktunstill (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the allegations are sockpuppetry and 3RR-breach, they are denied. Would the clerk please contact me as I have some important and confidential information - which will affect the outcome of this claim - to convey about some of those involved in this matter.Tanbycroft (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Tarc has asked me to have a look at this case as a (non-checkuser) admin. In my view, there are strong indications that these two editors are the same person. Tarc has already pointed out the interleaving edits. In addition, the contributions history of the editors is curious. Marktunstill is the newer of the two accounts - it was created on 25 February 2008 but made no more edits between then and 21 January 2009, when it intervened in the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni dispute. The Marktunstill account had no involvement prior to 29 January 2009, when the Tanbycroft account was on the edge of a 3RR violation. In addition, the language used by the two accounts suggests common authorship. Compare the edit summaries for Marktunstill and Tanbycroft  and the shared use of distinctive phrases in edit summaries such as "I would recommend",. This indirect evidence is indicative of sockpuppeting, and I recommend that a checkuser should take a look at the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Tarc (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC) -- lucasbfr  talk 11:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅. --Deskana (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Main account blocked for 31 hours, sock indef blocked. Tiptoety talk 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions