Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonalone/Archive

Report date February 7 2010, 02:23 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User:Haiduc was apparently banned in an incident relatively recently. THis user was first noted as having revented a large portion of his edits. An observation was made that User:Geogre and User:Nandesuka had also been involved in the issue--and had used socks. Further work brought up this, which shows a large pattern of cross-edits between these three users. Also, this very unusual edit pattern, disappearing for nearly a year and coming back after Haiduc was banned suggest that these accounts are interlinked in some fashion, which deserves investigation of some sort. Ipatrol (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Ipatrol (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * What, what? I can tell you I am not the user Haiduc or his two puppets. If you look carefully at my edits, you will see that when I say revert banned user not reverting TO a banned user's edits, which makes no sense. I am UNdoing what he did, not REdoing it. And I came back a couple weeks BEFORE Haiduc's ban not AFTER it. Please take a careful look before you make any accusations.--Tonalone (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a surprising way to return to Wikipedia. Even though this case is closed, I figured I should drop in to say that of course I am not a sockpuppet of any of the other parties mentioned.  Nandesuka (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One more comment - more of a question, really. lpatrol says "An observation was made that User:Geogre and User:Nandesuka had also been involved in the issue--and had used socks."  The passive tense makes this completely incomprehensible.  Who made that observation?  Where did they make it?  At what point has there ever been a determination that I used socks? Nandesuka (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Geogre's last edits are far too old to be checkuserable and anyway, he was desysopped before he left, so I'm not sure what could be done other than a block which would not accomplish anything. Nandesuka has 6 edits that would be checkuserable and they don't overlap well with Tonalone's edit times, so it would be a bit of luck if checkuser could find anything.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is "Sockpuppet investigations" some kind of wiki-asylum for the terminally paranoid, or merely living up to its proud traditions since the days of User:!! ? Geogre left the project in July 2009. Get off his page and take your so-called evidence with you. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC).
 * I suggest an appology is posted on Geogre's page for having the audacity to post such malicious rubbish here.  Giano   08:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed Ipatrol's sock tags on User:Nandesuka and User:Tonalone until a CU is confirmed. I highly doubt that any of the three accounts are related. Nandesuka and Geogre had different personalities and it would be highly unlikely they are the same person. I know nothing about Tonalone. If I am in error or I went beyond my remit, please let me know. Regards, Ripberger (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given his actions   (hacking large swaths of Featured Articles, and unilaterally demoting them), Tonalone is more likely to be a troll like Peter Damian, who recently had a sockpuppet for similar purposes, User:Think of the children. See this nom, which connects the two users. Cleaning up after Haiduc is hard enough without someone dumping napalm all round, especially on material that clearly has been reviewed by others, like FAs. Pcap  ping  12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I also have to agree with the above three. I'm not seeing anything that can conclude that socking is going on, and I also doubt CU will unearth much if anything. –MuZemike 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * No clear and conclusive evidence presented to even justify a checkuser, let alone a block without one. Case closed. NW ( Talk ) 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)