Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.98.206.2

User:67.98.206.2

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

--Cerejota 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reverts with same argument, but different users. 
 * Evidence

Admits being sock puppet and taunts for a checkuser: In fact a checkuser should be performed to insure no further sock puppets exist, including registered accounts.

Raised related ArbCom enforcement here:
 * Comments
 * I wasn't attempting to appear to be more than one person, here. I was simply doing anon editing from more than one location. While WP:SOCK doesn't strictly apply to anon editors in my understanding, I will gladly make it clear that this personal IP also edits under that other shared IP as well on my user page. -- 146.115.58.152 04:37, 5 August 2007
 * Now this ("admits to being a sock") is patently false. I admit to editing from two different IPs. WP:SOCK applies to registered accounts, not IP editors. I haven't voted on anything or tried to evade WP:3RR simply because I use multiple computers. I'm rather aghast that having addressed his concerns here he still insists on making an issue of this. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the point that running a WP:CHECKUSER on an IP address doesn't obtain any new information (duh) has sailed clear over Cerejota's head. -- 146.115.58.152 20:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my own words of explanation to you to use as evidence against me, and I'm replying to this evidence, as is my right, with all the patience for such behavior I can muster. -- 146.115.58.152 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the situation, but this is an editor that popped out of nowhere I do not want to do a RfCU myself, but do ask you (Newyorkbrad) or some other uninvolved admin did it. He *taunted* me to perform a Checkuser in my talk page, and admited the multiple IPs. And it is not based on a few edits, the editor is now editing in the RfAr for Allegations of apartheid, and for being a relatively recent editor, has an in depth knowledge of policy as obscure as WP:ASR. This is all highly suspicious.

In fact, when I started this, I was hoping that it would be a simple anon troll. Now I worry about actual sockpuppetry by a registered user...

Based on these things, I must state a suspicion that these might be sockpuppets of a registered user. Hence, my asking for mediated RfCU. If I am out of line, please let me know. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so I'm a "troll" purely because I'm editing anonymously? This is all purely over a content dispute involving WP:ASR and Template:Allegations of apartheid, about which I've essentially given up the ghost, and as such this whole action borders on WP:HARASSment. Unless it can be suggested I've committed some actual action which warrants a WP:RFCU (per the list on that page) I would appreciate wikipedia respecting my privacy. I don't appreciate such an action being performed solely on the grounds of a vague "suspicion" that doesn't link me to any active registered account. -- 146.115.58.152 03:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Under category "G" for the reasons I have already stated and possibly a modified "B" and "F" (I mean, what are the chances of an recent anon user knowing the intricacies of WP:ASR???). To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared, then you taunted me with checkuser and changed your tone from a WP:ASR-based objection to more classic edit conflict in terms only an editor with a year+ of experience in these articles could have. I mean, it was your own writting that made me suspicisious.

If you quack, people are naturally going to think you are a duck.

I got a proposal: reveal your possible registered accounts to Newyorkbrad, and he sends a message to the community that you are not a puppet/master for active registered accounts, or banned accounts or in any other way are anyone other than an anon editor of these IPs. I have no interest in knowing your identity, I do have an interest in making sure you are not a sock of a registered account, in particular one active the articles in question.

Lastly, I again request guidance, should I pursue RfCU or should a third party neutral admin do it?--Cerejota 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, without any evidence, you are calling me a "troll" and a "vandal" simply because I am editing anonymously, and we had a content dispute. I see this as a complete disregard of WP:AGF on your part. I would hope no third party, including Newyorkbrad, would put up with such an obvious attempt to harass another wikipedian. Were I ever a registered editor, I'm certainly seeing how the other half lives now. -- 146.115.58.152 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cool down. I have not called you a troll or a vandal. I did say that initially I supected this and then changed my opinion. I say this clearly, so I cannot understand how you can possibly say that I have called you a troll or a vandal: To be clear, I initially thought it was a troll/vandal attack, but when you started to engage that suspicion disappeared. I am quoting myself from above.


 * Please do not misrepresent what I said, or try to poison the well with a counter-charge. I am not harassing you. I am simply following the process the community has to deal with the kind of suspicions I have. I might be correct or incorrect, but following process is not harassment. I have remained civil.


 * However, your accusation is a very serious one, and I sugest you take it to the corresponding forum if you truly think it has merit.


 * Otherwise, I cannot take it seriously and must think of it as an overreaction at best, or an attempt to poison the well so that a checkuser is not performed that might reveal additional sockpuppets. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, so your suspicions changed from me being a vandal and a troll to being a banned editor. Explain to me again when you ever assumed good faith? How about we just dead this, instead of this ongoing one-upmanship? I still don't think that link in the template does much good, but I really don't care any more. You have a strong resemblance to the guy who wrote WP:POOR, I think. -- 146.115.58.152 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have strong resemblance to the guy, but as the page history show, I *am* the guy who wrote it, based on a posting by User:Localzuk in a talk page, as noted in the talk page of WP:POOR. I ask you again to stop forum fishing and poisoning the well, and if you have a problem with my behavior, follow the process we have in wikipedia for it.


 * And I do not think you are necessarily a banned user, I do suspect one of your sockpuppets are a registered account. This account might be active or inactive, but you in depth knowledge of a long debate and of wikipedia policy as obscure as WP:ASR, which is not usual in anonymous users.


 * BTW, WP:SOCK clearly says that we have a sockpuppet situation, a user posting from two different IPs. This doesn't mean the user should be banned per-se, but sockpupetry in this case is beyond suspicion, as it is admitted by the user. Username needs to be put in . Some admin please make note of this. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies I didn't realize that the template was about banning. We are not yet in that step.--Cerejota 07:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

If all that is involved here is the same individual editing anonymously from two different locations, then the anon is right that in and of itself there is no policy violation, particularly since the relationship is acknowledged.

Theoretically, checkuser could establish whether any registered users edit from either of these IP's, but I doubt that an RfCU would be entertained based on just a couple of edits. Of course, if this anon is the same individual as a registered user who has edited on the same articles, he or she should kindly say so.

Absent further evidence, I am inclined to close this case, but will await any further responses or input first. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of a policy violation here, and no need for a Checkuser request. Case closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)