Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProfXY/Archive

Report date February 13 2009, 00:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Soupforone (talk)

There has been a serious problem of late with vandalism over at the Hamitic article. It all began with this edit by an anonymous IP, which involved the removal of sources and the insertion of fairly blatant, unsourced POV. The edit was reverted by me. But the anonymous IP again removed the sources and re-inserted their POV. So another editor reverted the IP this time, describing the IP's edit as 'baloney'. And so it went, back and forth, with the other editor and I restoring sources and removing POV, and the anonymous IP continuously reverting our edits: other editor restoring sources & removing POV; IP reverting other editor; me restoring sources & removing POV. That's when the newly-created ProfXY account just so happened to show up (on this of all pages, and at this of all times) to perform its very first edit: the exact same one as the anonymous IP. So I again restored the sources and removed the unsourced POV. But the newly-created ProfXY account predictably reverted my edit, with the anonymous IP only 21 minutes later coincidentally showing up to edit the exact same portion of the article as ProfXY's edit which immediately preceded its own edit. I restored the sources again, and explained on the article's talk page to ProfXY/the IP that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that all claims must be properly sourced. I even directly quoted for him/her the relevant portions of the Wiki rulebook. However, that didn't seem to have had an effect since the IP this time reverted my edit with not even so much as an edit summary explaining why s/he was doing so. This is when an administrator stepped in to protect the page from, in his words, 'Excessive vandalism'. That page-lock has temporarily abated the IP's posts, but ProfXY has stepped in to pick up the slack, so-to-speak. S/he has been soapboxing for days now on the article's talk page, without even so much as once attempting to provide actual sources for his many claims like the other editor and I have repeatedly asked him to. Interestingly, however, the anonymous IP whose page vandalism caused the Hamitic article to be protected in the first place -- and who is supposedly a different person from ProfXY -- has not once shown up on the article's talk page to discuss the situation. It has just been myself, the other editor, and the ProfXY account. I've also suggested in several of my edit summaries that ProfXY was using anonymous IPs to push POV, but at no point did he deny this as one might expect. So that's basically the situation for now. The Hamitic article is currently in its original sourced version, but I'm pretty certain ProfXY will show up in a few hours to revert it back to his editorializing. He has already demonstrated that he is not particularly honest (see, for example, this latest edit where ProfXY claims to be undoing an edit of mine when, in reality, he is reverting an edit by the other editor involved in the dispute who had only a few minutes earlier finished restoring the sources and removing the POV inserted by ProfXY), and has no regard for Wiki's policies, WP:NOR in particular. Can someone please Checkuser this account? Soupforone (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Soupforone (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The evidence submitted shows no cases of vote stacking, and the alleged master is not subject to any community sanctions that he could be evading. Mayalld (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * parties notified Mayalld (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Tiptoety talk 02:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur - seems to be better handled as a case of edit warring if it recurs. Seems under control, no obvious need for checkuser at this time. Bear in mind that if behavior alone is enough to support administrator action, then CheckUser would not usually be needed anyway. FT2 (Talk 11:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)