Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCT/Archive

Evidence submitted by Breein1007
These 3 accounts have been making edits to the same few articles recently. First of all, Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident. Soledad22 edit warred between Feb 13 and Feb 17 to remove certain information from the article. 5 reverts were made within that time. On Feb 18, 24.60.157.218 entered and reverted, with a very similar edit summary to each of the 5 previous reverts made by Soledad22. Common "blood libel" in quotation marks. Finally, on Feb 19, NickCT joined in and reverted the same information 2 times, with a similar edit summary. Repeated words such as "inappropriate", "POV, and "well poisoning". Checkuser would be helpful in clearing this up because if this is indeed a case of sockpuppetry, it is a violation of 3RR.

Additionally, on Feb 18, 24.60.157.218 made 2 reverts to Ari_Emanuel dealing with the wording used to reference the Irgun organization. On Feb 19, NickCT found his way to the article and made an edit dealing with the same issue.

A look at all 3 of these accounts' talk pages will show that all 3 of them have a habit of deleting warning templates from other users.

Finally, a quick look at the contribs of the 3 accounts shows some similarity in terms of dates absent. NickCT's contribs show him taking a break between Feb 12 and Feb 18, which is the same as 24.60.157.218. Breein1007 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

 * Sigh..... Breein Breein Breein..... I don't choose to defend myself as the accusation is patently false.  I would however like to mention that a quick review of Breein contribs will reveal a long list of disruptive editting.  Rarely have I seen a contrib list with so many "stop edit warring" comments.  Breein is a classic example of an editor who exists solely to push POV.  Can I take some action against Breein for frivolous, badfaith accusations of this nature?  NickCT (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nick, I have no idea whether you're Soledad, but there's very little reasonable doubt that you're a sockpuppet. Your account was created in 2007 then used only five times until 2009, and used only sporadically since then to edit contentious topics e.g. climate change and Israel-related. Under 500 edits overall in three years (ish), and only 136 to articles. Then using it to revert multiple times on articles you were otherwise not involved in. Sockpuppetry on I/P articles is particularly discouraged. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * *Chuckle* Slim. I don't know how to say this more clearly.  I ain't a puppet.  Period.  Frankly, I think your accusitory tone is more related to disagreements we've had over editting, than any real feeling that I'm actually puppetting.  Poor show Slim..... Poor show.  I'll keep your comment your on I/P in mind in case I ever do decide to start sock puppetting ;-)  NickCT (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No sockpuppet here, more of the same from a corrupt and abusive admin with an obvious agenda. Why don't you use your little checkuser tool and find out for yourself? Wikipedia will continue to be a laughing stock as long as these sorts of abuses are allowed to continue. 24.60.157.218 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks 24.60.157.218 - However, I should note that while Slim is an admin with an obvious agenda, she hasn't actually "abused" her admin priviledges as such. She's only cast baseless accusations, which anyone is entitled to do. NickCT (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Are these edits yours too?


 * "Title is also racist, you ar supposed to call a spade an africanamerican or at least black."
 * "Here's a question, if Aspergers is a real thing, then why don't any good looking people have it? A "syndrome" can't only affect ugly people, you know..."


 * SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LoL. You gotta admit.  That second vandalism about Aspergers is pretty humourus.  I'm guess 24.60.157.218 is some public computer.  If the previous poster reads this, I suggest he create an account. NickCT (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I TOTALLY REJECT THE CHARGE. SORRY BUT YOU GUYS ARE WRONG. Why is this being done, because we agree on one edit to improve Wikipedia? Stop attacking people.Soledad22 (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Breein1007 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR is more than three reverts in 24 hours per article, which I'm not seeing here. Can you provide diffs? Tim Song (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right. I just looked over it again and realized I made a mistake with the times... in both articles I linked above, 3RR wasn't broken. But if these are socks, it's blatant edit warring and even though the edits were timed well enough to get around the bright line 3RR, it is still an edit war. I think checkuser is still warranted based on this. Breein1007 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom has made it clear that there's no need to find the alternative accounts or 3RR violations, or anything else. If it's clear that someone's a sock, especially in a controversial area, those are grounds enough for taking action. And it couldn't really be clearer in the case of both Soledad22 and NickCT, whether or not they're the same person. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

– Breein1007 is right. Taking a quick look at the history of the Muhammad al-Durrah incident, it is clear that edit-warring is going on, even though 3RR may not have been broken. The timing of the edits IMO seem a little suspect in which I think we can use a check here. –MuZemike 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * MuZemike - While I welcome a CheckUser, I would suggest you consider the source of these allegations in future. Breein is clearly making bad faith accussations against those who oppose his POV pushish.  A quick check of his contribs makes this obvious.  Be entertaining this kind of trolling, you essentially condone it.....  NickCT (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Launching attacks at me is not going to get far with me or anywhere else. Also, watch who you're calling a "troll". –MuZemike 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Muz, what are you calling an "attack at me"? When I asked you to "consider the source" ?  That is an attack?  When I suggested you might be encouraging trolling?  That is an attack?  You gotta tone the old sensitivity dial down a bit mate...NickCT (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The technical evidence indicates that the named party is ❌ to the IP or the listed account, and the listed account and the IP are unrelated to each other. -- Versa geek  22:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to apologize?......... Anyone ? crickets NickCT (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you had to go through this Nick, I hope everyone can move on from this now, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:SORRY next time: Sometimes it is better to wait for an apology, instead of demanding one. –MuZemike 22:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)