Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piriczki/Archive

Report date June 10 2009, 04:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Trevvvy

Removing/arguing over the same content from these three articles below. These removals have appeared as edit clusters in their respective user histories. Both User:Les Fleurs de Lys and User:70.191.127.27 have done nothing else on wikipedia except removing content and disruption ie. accounts created for the sole purpose of editing these three articles.


 * Kashmir (song), Stairway to Heaven, Dazed and Confused (song)


 * User:Piriczki:
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * User:Les Fleurs de Lys:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * User:70.191.127.27:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Also User:Piriczski. Editing in the same Tom Petty article as per User:Piriczki.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes, the edits by 70.191.127.27 are obviously mine. Those few edits were back in March and I don't recall the reason, if any, why I wasn't logged in. Frankly, I didn't realize that not being logged in was considered sockpuppetry.

I strongly disagree that any of these edits removed content for no reason, were argumentative or disruptive. All of the edits in question here relate to attempts to correct contributions by blocked user MegX, a prolific but inaccurate editor who, in her zeal to add anything favorable related to the rock band Led Zeppelin, often misinterpreted sources and was obstinent in refusing to allow other editors to correct her mistakes. Later it was revealed that User:MegX was one of many sockpuppets of User:Leanne in a massive sockpuppetry case which involved vote stacking, impersonation and accusing other people of sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Leanne/Archive.

I'll admit Les Fleurs des Lys was a silly, stupid thing to do. I guess I was just feeling grumpy and disagreeable over what seemed like an endless uphill battle just to make a few simple corrections. I soon realized that wasn't the way to go and abandoned that tack, deciding it was best to face the issues head on and just stick to the facts supported by solid, reliable sources.

Further, I would like to point out that all of these edits were entirely accurate and have held up for months with no disagreement by any other editors. The edits were limited to a handful of edits to three articles which attempted to correct what was essentially the same errant content in all three articles.

I understand that I am subject to an indefinite block, but I hope the adminstrators will see this as an isolated incident in the past and consider the whole of my contributions to wikipedia and I welcome any input from any established users or adminsitrators, particularly those familiar with music-related articles or my editing history.

Lastly, I don't want to waste any administrators' time but I strongly suspect this case was opened in bad faith. Isn't it odd how a new user here (Trevvvy) starts off editing with a sockpuppet investigation with every edit directed at me? This is obviously an experienced wikipedia user familiar with the history of these articles and certainly a sockpuppet of someone, perhaps one seeking revenge. Only one user, MegX, complained about my edits and has edited all three articles which Trevvvy complains about here (Kashmir (song), Stairway to Heaven and Dazed and Confused (song)) and the user talk pages of the accounts listed by User:Trevvvy, see, and.

Now I just noticed that Trevvvy has added User:Piriczski to the case. Apparently I made two edits in 2007, then corrected the spelling of the user name and continued on from there. Is that really a violation? This really seems like nit-picking now. I wouldn't have even remembered that if not for this "new user" Trevvvy bringing it up, he/she seems to know more about me than I do. Strange. Piriczki (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Seems ; some edits are identical, others very similar. However, the evidence is not so clear as to automatically conclude sockpuppetry. The users had not been notified of the opening of this investigation.  Now that this has been done, we can hear their word on the matter.--Aervanath (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Les Fleurs de Lys blocked as admitted sockpuppet of User:Piriczki. However, given that User:Piriczki has admitted that the creation of that account was a "silly, stupid thing to do", I'm going to take it on faith that it won't happen again. No action needed for the IP account; accidentally editing while logged off has happened to many editors in good standing. Since User:Piriczki made two edits before switching to User:Piriczki, and never used the first username again, it can't be considered a sockpuppet, so no action needed there, either.--Aervanath (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date July 1 2009, 16:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Aervanath


 * Note: Copied from User talk:Aervanath

I wish to reopen the investigation. I just noticed this edit by Piriczki: restored identical edits by User:JimmyRRpage User:Piriczki and User:JimmyRRpage both edited within the same section in the Dazed and Confused article:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * . Trevvvy (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Aervanath (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

See also Sockpuppet_investigations/Leanne; this is a pattern of tit-for-tat sock-reporting that needs to be either a) supported with CheckUser evidence or b) disproven completely so this can stop.--Aervanath (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ❌. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

These were spurious allegations filed by socks of User:Leanne, a banned user.--Aervanath (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions