Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VikSol/Archive

Report date April 8 2009, 18:46 (UTC)



 * Suspected sockpuppets

VikSol made their account a long time ago (in 2005), while Physiognome was created in May last year. However, despite being around for a year, Physiognome's edits are few and far between. In fact, despite having a total of fourteen edits, the user has gaps of numerous months between edits (up to six). It initially striked me as odd that such a rare editor would actually remember/bother to log onto the account after such a time duration, so I started to look deeper, and I have come to believe something is wrong here.
 * Evidence submitted by Licqua (talk)

The user's first edit was a redirect to the Origin of Language page, which one can see that VikSol has taken an interest to. Next, Physiognome edited Monogenesis (linguistics), again of interest to VikSol. Then a couple of edits to Nostratic languages, shared again with VikSol. Lastly (and it was here I encountered both accounts), at Talk:Classification of Japanese, Physiognome came to join in a debate on VikSol's side, after two months of non-editing. I wonder how exactly this user turns up at a page always when VikSol does. It is highly likely based on the evidence, that the two are connected accounts, and hopefully a checkuser will help sort out the situation. If the two are not related, my apologies. Licqua (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by VikSol: I have been a user of Wikipedia since 2005 and have never been accused of the slightest misconduct. During this time, I have edited a variety of articles, some of them on controversial subjects, which is the apparent source of the claim here.

The immediate reason for the conflict is that I have been engaged for the past few days in a controversy with Licqua on Talk:Eurasiatic languages and Talk:Classification of Japanese. As I have had no other contacts with Licqua, this controversy is likely to be the motivation for his accusation. I believe this motivation is as illegitimate as they come and the accusation can be dismissed forthwith.

As to Physiognome being a sockpuppet of mine, it is entirely baseless. I have no idea who he is. The fact we appear to have some similar interests is true of a lot of other people and constitutes no basis for accusation. Nor has either Physiognome or myself ever engaged in malicious behavior. This is much less clearly the case for Licqua, who has recently been blocked on the article Classification of Japanese by an administrator for edit-warring.

If I had to speculate, I would say Physiognome is a Frenchman, based on his name and style of language. If so, the reason he has few edits on Wikipedia and that they are interrupted by absences may well be that he is active on the French Wikipedia and only looks in on the English Wikipedia from time to time. It is clear my language is not that of a native French speaker. A style, like a signature, is not as easy to forge as some people think.

While I am not a sockpuppet, and I would be very surprised if Physiognome is, there is evidence that Licqua may be a sockpuppet himself. Licqua has only been a user for about a month, yet he shows surprising familiarity with the ways of Wikipedia, including the procedure for accusing people of sockpuppetry, which he deploys unhesitatingly. Unlike Physiognome, "Licqua" is clearly a native English speaker and thus would not have acquired his experience of Wikipedia from Wikipedia in another language.

As background to this conflict, I offer the following observations, which I request be passed on to the relevant highest authorities. On February 18, 2009, I moved the article "Mass lexical comparison" to "Mass comparison", a move long called for on its talk page by responsible contributors. This article dealt with an extremely controversial subject, the theories of language classification of Joseph Greenberg, one of the most prominent and controversial American linguists of the 20th century. Just how vehement the controversy has been can be seen from the archive of Talk:Mass comparison and from Talk:Joseph Greenberg. Apparently someone didn't like this move, because immediately thereafter articles on which I had worked began to be vandalized one after the other, using a variety of IP addresses and recently established usernames, although many of the articles had long been stable before and very few had been vandalized at all recently. This pattern, as well as similarities in attitude and diction, suggests that one individual is concerned and that he does not have a lot of scruples. The use of multiple IP addresses represents a sophisticated form of vandalism which lacks an obvious counter. This is why I request it be brought to the attention of the highest authorities, who may find it an interesting challenge.

Licqua's activity would fit the pattern observed: accusing me of sockpuppetry on the basis of a single dispute on a talk page to which he is a party. In any event, the accusation is baseless, and I request that it be dismissed. I also suggest that "Licqua" be permanently blocked, as to make wantonly malicious accusations is a serious matter.

Sincerely, VikSol (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are not connected with the user (as all the evidence points to that you are), then you will not object to a checkuser. It is your objectivity that raises even more suspicions. Oh, and your point about me doing it to get back at you? Absurd; if this was the case, I would surely have said that User:Kwamikagami was involved too, which I have not, and have engaged in entirely civil conduct with the user. And your suggestion that I be blocked for accusing you? I wonder if you have actually learned much in your entire time here. Licqua (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Licqua, you are invading space reserved for "Comments by accused parties". Since you take it upon yourself to add to your spurious accusation, I will add a few comments of my own, in a space where I am entitled to put them:

We cannot take anything Licqua says at face value. Licqua has said Physiognome supports me on Talk:Classification of Japanese, but in fact Physiognome’s position doesn’t agree with mine - very strange behavior for a supposed sockpuppet.

To claim a possible connection between Physiognome and me, Licqua had to make himself familiar with both Physiognome’s edits and my edits, which go all the way back to 2005. This fits the pattern of the person who has been vandalizing pages I edited, since that person already had this information. Is it proof? Not in itself. But it is remarkable that Licqua has been spending his time going through the hundreds of edits I have made since 2005 instead of responding to the simple request put to him to provide references for his changes to Classification of Japanese. After repeated requests by various contributors he failed to provide a single reference.

I most emphatically deny that the accuser's conduct has been "civil". It has not, and that was one reason he was blocked by an administrator, Kwamikagami, from further edits to that page. In contrast, I have always behaved in good faith on Wikipedia and have a track record of cooperating constructively with anyone who wants to improve an article. VikSol (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on, so you're now accusing me of being a sockpuppet that previously stalked you? Well if you truly believe so, I suggest you file an investigation yourself. And please do not twist the truth. Both yourself and Physiognome agreed on the Classification of Japanese talkpage - something easily verifiable from looking at the page itself. Also, Kwamikagami blocked me for edit warring, not for being uncivil; also note that he came to trust me and unblocked me early. Again, I must add, if you really aren't this user, why such a fuss about a checkuser? Licqua (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Indeed a ridiculous claim. --Physiognome (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see this case brought here. Even if sock puppetry is going on, its so mild in this instance as to not even be worth the time to report it. There's no edit warring, vote fraud manipulation, or abusive behavior going on as far as I can tell.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Users are not permitted to hold multiple accounts unless they openly disclose them (and obviously do not use them for the reasons you talked about above). For the reasons given, it's very likely they're operated by the same person, and if they are, this must be known to other editors, as the rules on the multiple accounts page state. Licqua (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Users are allowed to operate multiple accounts, but (in simple terms) the accounts must not both be active in the same debate, topic, matter, etc, and the use of multiple accounts must not amount to evasion of scrutiny or of sanctions (blocks, bans, restrictions etc). See WP:SOCK, section "Alternative accounts". FT2 (Talk 03:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * notified parties Mayalld (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is very weak. Infrequent editors are not that uncommon an occurence, and an editor who edits rarely in a narrow field is inevitably going to have an intersection with a frequent editor. Leaping to an accusation of socking just because an infrequent editor agrees with a regular editor isn't in the spirit of WP:AGF, and given that the complainant was blocked for edit warring, there is an appearance of sour grapes here. The complainant needs to remember that the convention is Bold, Revert, Discuss, NOT Bold, Revert, Bold, Discuss. If your edits are reverted, take it to the talk page. Don't re-apply them, and demand that the person reverting you justify his revert. Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions