Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phildorocke/Archive

13 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Back in May, an IP inserted some information implying that Scott Bourne was a convicted felon (diff). This information was expanded upon by Phildorocke on July 31 (diff) and by Jeremytmiller on August 12 (diff). However, at no time was any indication given that it was this particular Scott Bourne, therefore raising BLP issues. An IP reverted the changes on August 12 (diff), only to have Jeremytmiller restore them eight minutes later diff). I reverted it back, only to have Jeremytmiller make three attempts to reinsert them.  He only stopped when I gave him a final warning.  Now today, Phildorocke comes back after a two-week break and reinserts the questionable material (diff).  Hardly a coincidence, especially considering that both have only edited this article. Blueboy96 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a certain irony to being accused of being a "meatpuppet" -- a relatively derogative and, arguably controversial label (in the Internet sphere, at least) -- on the basis of the same sort of circumstantial alignment of facts that was deemed insufficient to justify the inclusion of certain information in the article that gave rise to this entire episode. It makes one wonder if this entire process violates the same policies that we have been accused of violating. Phildorocke (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Likely, but I'll endorse to rule out meatpuppetry. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

❌ – Looks like meatpuppetry. –MuZemike 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... alright then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)