Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/999

User:999

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

posted a comment on my talk page signed as banned user 999. He immediately realized his mistake and replaced it with another message.
 * Evidence


 * Comments

The date of signing of the first post is curious. Its 9 June 2006 (UTC). This looks like a cut and paste job from a comment on Kephera975 talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment- the 2 posts have completely unrelated subject matter so it looks more like Kephera accidentally blanked the pre-existing comment by 999.  If the comments said the same thing, that would more imply it's the same person under different names.  But they don't.  I don't necessarily disbelieve this allegation though:)  But his accidently blanking/replacing an unrelated comment by another user, doesn't necessarily provide evidence.Merkinsmum 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please check the diffs. That comment wasn't posted on my page by 999. It was posted by Kephera975. Then he blanked/replaced it. IPSOS (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - it looks like an accidental cut and paste from a comment on Kephera975's own user talk page to me. It's spurious evidence at best. User:IPSOS, I came across the issue while browsing ANI and it does concern me that you raise this allegation during a content dispute with User:Kephera975; having been on the receiving end in the past myself, I have to doubt your ability to assume good faith. ColdmachineTalk 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from judging me. In all cases where I have made sockpuppet accusations, there have been either previous use of sockpuppetry or evidence that made me believe the was a use of sockpuppets. The fact that you got yourself unblocked does not mean that there was not extremely good evidence that you were a sock at the time I reported you as such. IPSOS (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the evidence was so spurious the case was overturned. I am also not 'judging' you here; I've no interest in engaging in politics on here, or in warring with you, and my comments on the AfDs in question (recommending weak keeps or merges) should indicate that. I have also noted that I do partly agree with you on the nature of the AfD proposals - I feel that WP:POINT and bad faith may be at the root of them. However this sort of information (i.e. past history of accusations, and the context of them) may be useful for judgement by administrators on this particular case. ColdmachineTalk 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence was strong to me. Several sockpuppets had been blocked, and you and one of those blocked socks used exactly the same wording. You are not bothering to look at it from my point of view. To me, it looked like yet anothe r sock in a series of socks. You continue to ignore that given the history of sockpuppetry in the case, I had no reason to continue to assume good faith given the clear evidence. The fact is that multiple admins thought the the evidence was strong at the time and so did I. So please stop accusing me of bad faith, because my actions were justified and never called into question by any of the admins responding. IPSOS (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position on the matter, but it's not relevant to this case. Let's move on. I apologise if you feel attacked, but that was not the intent as I say. The intent was merely to raise some context which might be of use to admins when examining this case. We are human, and we are fallible, and this has been proven. ColdmachineTalk 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging my position. I agree, let's move on, no hard feelings. Feel free to remove this whole conversation, as I agree it it not applicable here. IPSOS (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Kephera's edit using the dated signature of 999 was bizarre, but it does not prove sock puppetry. He copied the source code verbatim from the first nontrivial comment that someone else left on his talk page, namely, this pair of comments by 999. I have no idea why he did that, but it doesn't mean he has secret access to 999's offline identity. It just means he was copying something from his talk page archives. I'll assume good faith until further evidence comes to light. Shalom Hello 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)