Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher/Archive

Report date February 8 2009, 15:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

3RR violation removing images from Temple garment. The use of images in the article has been under long-term attack by LDS members that believe it to be inappropriate to display images of the temple garments. Long-standing consensus is that removing the images on those grounds runs afoul of WP:NOT.
 * Evidence submitted by &mdash;Kww(talk)

24.8.64.63 began removing the images yesterday, and, after warnings, Wildernessflyfisher took up the cause. After Wildernessflyfisher received vandalism warnings, 24.8.64.63 started up again.

&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16:24, 7 February 2009
 * 16:31, 7 February 2009
 * 13:06, 8 February 2009
 * 15:00, 8 February 2009

Note language in this message from Wildernessflyfisher and this edit summary from 24.8.64.63.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This change in defense is quite telling as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

24.8.64.63 is the IP of an aquaintance who started making edits to the page yesterday. A simple IP location lookup performed on the web pinpoints 24.8.64.63 in Aurora, Colorado. I can similarly be pinpointed in Mesa, AZ. I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that we're different people. If Kww had taken two minutes to check this out himself, he would have seen that his allegations are false. It seems that he cares more about his ego than saving the valuable time of Wikipedia community members. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with another independent user doesn't constitute sockpuppetry. I felt that Kww's edits clearly violate WP:NVC, and took up the cause. Kww has no defense for his clear lack of objectivity in this case. His accusations are nothing more than a red herring to distract from that. The very fact that he's spending so much effort trying to wrongfully incriminate me, and his total failure to defend himself for violating WP:NVC seem to indicate nothing more than hotheaded reaction. Kww is a Wikipedia vandal who unneccesarily wastes the time of other community members.Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, Wildernessflyfisher, do you know the difference between official 'policy' and an 'essay' ? Duke53 | Talk 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

"Kww is a known Wikipedia vandal who has clearly violated the No Vested Contributor policy (WP:NVC) of Wikipedia in regards to the Temple garment article". That's quite a stretch ! I was wondering myself about a relationship between those two users; it seems like the old 'tag-team' action, perhaps done by a single editor. This is, IMO, definitely worth investigating. Duke53 | Talk 16:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This:
 * "24.8.64.63 is the <U>IP of a friend of mine</U></B> who started making edits to the page yesterday. Hopefully agreeing with another user doesn't constitute sockpuppetry. I felt that Kww's edits clearly violate WP:NVC, and took up the cause. Kww has no defense for his clear violation of Wikipedia policy. His accusations are nothing more than a red herring to distract from that fact. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</I>"
 * was changed to this:
 * "<I>24.8.64.63 is the <B><U> IP of another user</U></B> who started making edits to the page yesterday. Agreeing with another independent user doesn't constitute sockpuppetry. I felt that Kww's edits clearly violate WP:NVC, and took up the cause. Kww has no defense for his clear violation of Wikipedia policy. His accusations are nothing more than a red herring to distract from that fact. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</I>". Hmm ... doth someone protest too much ? <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to <B>"aquaintance"</B> since that was a better description of my relationship. First stating that I know the other user, then eding the statement to reflect that the other user is independent from me does not constitute lying, despite the allegations that your are spreading all over wikipedia right now. What you're doing constitutes harassment, and if you continue <B>I will take action</B>. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ❌ as far as I can tell. However, I find it a bit odd that both the user and IP refer to WP:NVC – an essay I wasn't even familiar with – quite frequently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)