Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smith724/Archive

17 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

All three accounts have made similar edits   which add original research to Eric Tillman and have made few edits outside of that page. Three users making the same edits make it falsely appear as if there is a consensus in the content dispute at that page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

All three accounts have made similar edits [1] [2] [3] which add original research to Eric Tillman and have made few edits outside of that page. Three users making the same edits make it falsely appear as if there is a consensus in the content dispute at that page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what was written by Hirolovesswords.

I can assure all investigators that I am not the same person as Smith724. IP checks will confirm this no matter what Hirolovesswords is FALSELY accusing me of.

This is the fact. Hirolovesswords has taken an interest in the Rric Tillman article for whatever reasons and has been territorial about REMOVING well done research that adds and supports honestly the career arc of one Eric Tillman. Then Hirolovesswords has been bent on inserting poorly researched and biased information that slants this article in a certain negative direction. This is obvious for all to see as his/her edits always take on a negative slant and remove well researched information that lends to itself to a much more complete picture of Eric Tillman's career with both his successes and failures.

Hirolovesswords is doing a disservice to not only this article but to wikipedia with his/her behaviour in this regard. Not only that, but now Hirolovesswords has resorted to false accusations of sockpuppetry.

I welcome this matter to be looked into so that a more honest and complete article regarding Eric Tillman remains up instead of biased reseach and slants that Hirolovesswords is putting on things. Then when this gets pointed out, he/she has resorted to territorialism, and as will soon be found out, false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSegretti (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia:

THis is username DSegretti. You'll find with an IP check that Smith724 and I are NOT the same person and that Hirolovesswords's accusations are false. Moreso, you'll find Hirolovesswords is now resorting to accusations of vandalism as well as sockpuppetry?

Why?

Because Hirolovesswords has chosen to be territorial about the "Eric_Tillman" article, and the challenges to the veracity of his edits. And those challenges to his edits are coming from multiple sources, not just myself.

When editing an article about a real and well known person, one expects facts, fairness and balance to be presented in one's edits. Wikipedia is meant to inform the viewer, not slant or bias them. Recently, several SOURCED updates were obvioulsy inlcuded in the Eric_Tillman article that lended themselves to fleshing out his career, both failures and successes. Hirolovesswords objected to many of these sources edits and constantly came back time and time again with his/her own edits that removed positives. And even sometimes posted biased, subjective viewpoints that were often not supported by any facts whatsoever, but were merely conjecture.

When the previous edits that were far more accurate were restored, that's when we now have Hirolovesswords getting his or her dander up, and falsely flinging accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism (trying unsuccessfully to intimidate).

What is desired is an accurate and honest account of the subject in question & that is something that Hirolovesswords is unwilling to provide or aid. In fact, he or she has done just the opposite. And when called out on the floor about it, Hirolovesswords has resorted to false accusations.

Please look into this matter and find out the truth. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSegretti (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU-wise Smith724 and Wordssm are very one editor (thus I've indeffed Wordssm), and DSegretti is  - one has to look at the edits to decide about possible sanctions. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have added SPI templates to your comments to ease interpretation of your results. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked DSegretti indef, master 1 week, closing. Rschen7754 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)