Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Namuslu/Archive

07 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The evidence is not compelling, and I can't say for sure that Namuslu is the sockpuppet, but there's definitely something suspicious about Forthenote. The account was created on November 2, and for his second edit he created a remarkably well-referenced article (Naum Theatre). Two days later, he uploaded a collage to Wikimedia Commons. In my opinion, and I'm sure in the opinions of many others, these are very unusual first edits for a newbie. Because of this, I'm inclined to think he isn't a newbie, and most likely is.

was indefinitely blocked back in May after repeatedly disrupting Turkey-related articles, including Istanbul. Every time semi-protection expired on the Istanbul page, he was back to disrupt the page, most recently in September. For some odd reason, his M.O. frequently was to change the images (see here, for example). Since November 4, the sole purpose of Forthenote's account has been in furtherance of replacing three images in the article (either by reverting them back into the article, or by stating there is consensus for his preferred infobox image on the talk page). The other articles he edited prior to coming to the Istanbul page have all been Turkey-related articles, primarily the Naum Theatre article he created and the Beyoğlu article, which Namuslu edited both when that account was still active and when he was caught evading his block in September.

The only somewhat direct evidence -- and I admit that it's not strong -- that points to Namuslu is the idiosycratic signature. As far as I know, the default signature is. However, with both Namuslu and Forthenote, they sign as. Forthenote changed it to that between making this comment and making this comment. An example of Namuslu with the same signature is here.

Any input on this would be appreciated. --  tariq abjotu  22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) --  tariq abjotu  22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Joke and Comment: (Was it the beautiful collage in the Istanbul article that that user introduced? :-) Of course sockpuppetry is a serious issue but this is the first time I see a user is being accused of it for a positive contribution to WP... --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick comment: When you edit your own user talk page, the default signature includes the . Try it yourself; there's nothing suspicious about the signatures in the diffs you gave. The section link is there by default to prevent the talk page link from becoming a blacklink on your own talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason for the "#top" designation was apparent to me already, but I didn't realize it did that automatically. I so rarely pay attention to these minutae in signatures, and Forthenote hasn't made a talk page remark anywhere else since. I'll strike out that part. That wasn't the reason I opened this investigation anyway. --  tariq abjotu  23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked users are not allowed to make any edits of any kind. And continually reverting content into an article against consensus is not positive. --  tariq abjotu  23:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked. I find the links cited at ANI particularly compelling. I've known this guy for years, and this is him, no doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)