Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Twospoonfuls/Archive

Report date July 4 2009, 05:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

After a number of edits over a long period of time starting on the 21st of March 2008, here; , here; , and so on, where he would revert anybodies edits that formatted the page into sections, which he didn't agree with, and a discussion on the talk page where this user made it clear that he felt ownership of the page Eurymedon vase, here , and then afterwards he unilaterally declares the discussion closed,. Not to mention being very uncivil throughout the process of trying to resolve the problem, such as here for example;, where he ends with "This "argument" (if I can dignify it with that Aristotelean term) would be more palatable if it wasn't an attempt to peddle arrant nonsense. And as much as I would be delighted to put forward a counter-argument I can't, because no argument has been posited in the first place. De gustibus non est disputandum. Seriously, go and find some thing useful to do.". Anyway this culminated with him saying he was going to just treat everybody else's edits as vandalism from then on, and reverting the page. I left off editing the page at the time because it all seemed too much trouble over a minor thing, until recently when I noticed via having placed the article on watch, that an editor had introduced sections again and Twospoonfuls had reverted it as vandalism. Mistakenly I felt that since he was using a false edit summary that it invalidated his own reversion as bad faith, and reverted it, using the summary to inform him of the fact that you shouldn't call good faith edits vandalism and this was actually against the relevant guidelines. Well he kept right on reverting the changes as 'vandalism', and after that had happened a few times, it occurred to me to review the rules on 3RR and edit warring, which I found we were in violation of, so I stopped editing the article, informed him of this and posted a report of the situation at the 3RR board. He kept reverting in the mean time until an admin acting on my report gave us both 24hr temporary bans for the edit warring, and the unregistered editor who had just previously introduced sections came back and apparently not realising why his edit had been undone went ahead and reintroduced the sections. Now a couple of days later this new editor Hygestone shows up, and having no other edit history, goes straight to this small obscure article and reverts the addition of sections? That multiple, independent editors had introduced before, and only Twospoonfuls had objected to, and been oddly adamant about it, considering the relative non-controversial edits he's objecting so strongly too are the addition of section heading for readability. Well it makes me more than a little suspicious, and then edits again without changing anything, presumably to make sure the last edit summary that comes up on peoples watch lists doesn't show that it was a revert. Apparently from this edit on his talk page he considers the whole getting banned for edit warring, and editors wanting to introduce section headings, to be 'horseshit', motivated by people being impressionable and getting over-excited by the subject of whether homosexual relationships in ancient Greece were all hand-handing and flowers or not, so I'm really not sure where he's coming from in all this. Anyway. I followed the directions on how to post one of these reports as best I can, so if I've done anything incorrect in the linking to difs or not included something necessary, let me know. Cheers Number36 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Number36


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't know where to begin with thhat catalogue of confusion and misrepresentation above, so I'll confine myself to the relevant facts. I don't have any other accounts, I have had a static IP on my PC since 2005, I have not asked anyone to intervene on my behalf. And nor would I ask anyone to do so, my argument remains that in deciding between stylistic preferences it is precident not consenus that determines priority: as in the case with BC/BCE disputes. My position is consistant with that laid out in the MoS. A point I've been unable to impress on Mr Number36, who I've suggested he take the matter to mediation or arbitration if he disagrees with the Manual of Style, but who seems to prefer edit warring and game playing.

Further it is not "rather obvious" Hygestone is me (which is certainly not the case), any more than it is obvious that 74.9.140.66 is user:Blue_Danube. Indeed there is a much stronger circumstantial case for the latter rather than the former. Blue Danube shares the same editing history (i.e. James Bond) with the anonymous user, the traceroute resolves to the north east US, and the user has been explicit in citing IP addresses in his claim of consensus opinion. However that does not make it "obvious" to me they are the same, I've already asked an admin to run a checkuser on this and I'll have to come back to the matter when I have the opportunity.

Lastly I had to learn about this allegation from the links page at Eurymedon Vase, is this furtiveness also evidence of "good faith"?Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at 's contributions, it's rather obvious that they are the same user as. That said, Hygestone seems to be an editor that has been here for quite some time, since 2006, so I might recommend blocking the sock, a 24 hour block for the master, and a curt warning that further socking will result in an indef block. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Although this has been archived already, I'd like to state clearly that 74.9.140.66 was definitely me. I never claimed otherwise, no one ever did, and this was never a part of the discussion at all. Blue Danube (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

I fail to see the "obvious" link between these two accounts. Hygestone has made two edits: the first undoing an IP, and the second making a minor edit to the page. The evidence above does not indicate a certainty or even a likelihood that these accounts are related. As such, I am taking no action here. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should also note that Hygestone removed the pederasty category that Twospoonfuls added. It is somewhat suspicious that a new editor arrives to join an ongoing edit war, but given how few edits were made there isn't enough evidence to link that account to anyone else. Next time wait a little longer before filing a case. Nathan  T 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)