Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slayer0273/Archive

Report date April 11 2009, 19:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by NJGW (talk)

These are all (with the exception of Fizzackerly and Jabrabyn) "single purpose" and "single use" accounts which have trolled Talk:Global warming in the past month. Their positions are very similar, and the first two named accounts are almost identical (one responds in the other's comment section). The talk page is a constant troll magnet, and it would help to know if a large amount of these trolls are connected to one person. Verifying this would help identify this sockmaster by their behavior in the future rather than allow time to be wasted dealing with each new sock. A check user would help see if these are isolated incidents or if there is someone with a sock farm.

Fizzackerly and Jabrabyn are not a complete SPAs, but trolled the page with similar intent in the same time period. May not be related.

-NJGW (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Diffs evidence
 * As requested: Slayer's only edit ever is to question the lack of prominence of the word "theory" (a well worn troll move).
 * Ross817's only edit at the time of this report was a trollish questioning of the article's faq, again pushing the "theory" issue.
 * Benshon's only edit is to request a section in the article about "global warming alarmism", a POV request that would probably only have blogs as sources
 * 68.56.175.27 has only made pure troll edits on the talk page, including editwarring to keep his non-article related edits there
 * 79.79.229.103's first edit on the talk page shows that he has been there for a while, complaining that the refdesk is controlled by global warming apologists
 * 74.71.106.171's only edit is to troll with a section titled "Scientific consensus is an oxymoron"
 * Fizzackerly requests a section almost exactly like Benshon does above, and also trolls about the language of the IPCC report
 * Jabrabyn is probably not connected, but he also adds a trolling section in the same one-month period which claims to have edited the article in the past though this doesn't appear in his edit history
 * -NJGW (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by NJGW (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Can you provide some supporting evidence in the form of diffs? It's a high traffic page, so if you could give us an idea of what specific edits ground your suspicion that would be helpful. Without further detail in the next 24 hours or so, this case is likely to be declined. Avruch  T 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence of a link between these accounts is unpersuasive, and even assuming a link there appears to be no violation of policy involved. Both are required for a CU check. Avruch  T 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * Archiving. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)