Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victory93/Archive

Note that was renamed to  in mid-2010. Courcelles 18:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Report date July 9 2009, 14:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

VitasV has been an established user for a while. He created the Trioculus1 account to add a pair of FfD !votes for images VitasV uploaded. Note that "Trioculus" is the name of a Star Wars character for whom VitasV created an article. Shortly after the image !votes, Trioculus1 also offered a !vote at the AfD discussion for Trioculus, another discussion at which VitasV had also !voted. User:Arcayne noted Trioculus1's sockish behavior and posted warnings at both user"s"' talk pages. For a while after, the accounts acted appropriately for someone operating two basic accounts. As another indication of their identical-user nature, Trioculus1 created a category and went on a spree adding video games to it; when that spree ended, VitasV created a template and went on a spree adding it to several articles. Shortly before I XfDed the aforementioned category and template, I left messages on both user"s"' talk pages warning "them" against "gaming" the system by !voting "twice," once under each account. Arcayne also left warnings along these lines. Nevertheless, VitasV and Trioculus both weighed in at one CfD. Additionally, Gaff1 was just created and has been adding one of the TfDed templates back to articles -- claiming he stumbled upon it, which is unlikely given it hasn't been catted; combined with claims of being a newbie user, a "random stumble" seems implausible, and this looks like potentially another vehicle for sock violations.
 * Evidence submitted by EEMIV
 * Forgot to add that "Trioculus1" and "Gaff1" follow the same naming pattern, i.e. a Star Wars character + 1. Trioculus and Gaff. --EEMIV (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

May I say that Trolling isn't allowed yet EEMIV seems to persist. Whatever I do he seems to have a grudge to it rather than the subject being relevant, he seems to use his biased views. Just because you are in a position being a moderator doesn't mean you may abuse your powers to your will. Everyone needs to be treated fairly. No one is above the law here but seeing as this is the internet, people like EEMIV seems that doesn't matter seeing as this is cyberspace and not the real world. Also if anyone is ever in favor of my views, EEMIV sees this as somewhat treason, to the theory that they are either me or in league with me. Surely I may have made wind of what's happening on here to other communities but not to force to where they do what I say. Everyone has a mind of their own and I agree, but EEMIV seems to beleive that (not sure are the right words) he can somehow command people so the place is kept the way he likes. If you look at EEMIV's talk page, there has been some incidents to which too he may not be proud of which even though wont deny, he may still see this right even though wrong. To further comment, many users when edit have their own views. To which this should not be put up on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information, not a world according to one person as see here to what the prosecutor seems to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs)


 * Allow me to cut to the chase: are you operating under the accounts of either Trioculus1 or Gaff1? If not, do you know these users in real life? We aren't here to focus on the drahmaz; thus the title of the section. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I know Trioculus1 may be a member of the Star Wars community I told (which I did not force but merely tell so it's not meat or whatever) and Gaff1 I don't know anything about. Gaff1 hasn't been involved in this Trioculus thing at all so I don't how he got put into this. Seems like EEMIV picked up a random bum off the streets and took him hostage (this is just an example). Also isn't it strange that only you and EEMIV seem to be complaining and not the entire Wikipedia community. My thoery that this whole thing is just EEMIV having spite over me. Notice his talk, you'll see numerous complaints against him. --VitasV (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again, as I perhaps was not clear: do you edit using more than one account? A simple yes or no will do.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I was merely given a thorough reason to why EEMIV may think why and more. --VitasV (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Now, if a connection is found, there aren't any excuses. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Definitely a sock. Also, this appears to be a larger problem than previously thought, with a substantial history of wantonly violating policy. The user (and their socks) are a net detriment to the project. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Had someone intended to request a checkuser to confirm in this case? Nathan  T 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for one, figuring that this sock. behavior is easily ascertainable simply by the editor's behavior; no need to go IP sniffing. --EEMIV (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

}}


 * Checkuser requested/endorsed. Nathan  T 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From a purely technical standpoint, connection is ; circumstantial cues have definitely piqued my interest. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On further review, looks like Trioculus1 == VitasV is very . – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Sockpuppet accounts User:Trioculus1 and User:Gaff1 have been blocked indefinitely for abuse of the sockpuppet policy. Main account User:VitasV has been blocked for one month for abuse of the policy. (If another admin feels the block should be lengthened, I would endorse such a move. While VitasV has made some productive contributions, the use of multiple accounts to unfairly influence discussions is unacceptable, and demonstrates a certain contempt for the collaborative process.) --Ckatz chatspy  08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that longer is called for. The user specifically sought to throw us off the scent by communicating with the sock, and was even given a last opportunity to fess up here in the SPI - and they lied yet again. 6 months is more reasonable, considering that my first thought was to perma-ban the user. We don't allow people who come here to cheat and lie. It sets a bad example. We have enough difficulty with behavioral issues without having to worry about outright fraud. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

VitasV has been renamed to -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)