Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar

User:Astutescholar

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets

Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar supports the first two suspected socks, PigeonPiece and Educationatlarge, all currently indef blocked
 * appears to be a sock of these users as well. That editor has only made 8 non-sandbox edits, 1/4 of which  and  were to ANI complaining about the two editors Astutescholar and the other two suspected socks had edit wars with, and complaining about the 2 admins that blocked the suspected socks.
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar has been updated with Astutescholar #2
 * Comments by EdJohnston
 * The question is what to do about Treasuryrain. There are grounds for blocking all the COI-affected agenda accounts promoting the Oxford Round table. (All the others are already blocked). Treasuryrain has never edited the article itself, only made a quite sophisticated and beautifully-formatted ANI posting, as his 11th Wikipedia edit, that complained in some detail about the enforcement efforts. This does suggest that he is not a new user, is someone extremely familiar with the Oxford Round Table, and probably a sock. The evidence laid out in WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive483 does seem persuasive, so I would favor an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors who'd like to check the past history of the Oxford Round Table issues should look at the recent ANI post from 11 October, 2008 that was already  cited above, and then at:
 * Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table (6 February 2008)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Oxford_Round_Table_(re-nomination)
 * Suspected_sock_puppets/Billingsworth (8 February, 2008)
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive366 (the first in-depth sock study, February, 2008)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to first point out that my reason for the ANI complaint was only to get the point across of certain wikipedia articles not moderated effectively. I have no intention of editing the article I used as an example myself. I only wanted some neutral administrator to look into it and that would be sufficient. I have had no contact with any of the users I am being suspected of being a sock of. In fact, the suspected sock report filed by Toddst1 only proves my point that anyone pointing out the "alliance" formed on certain articles will be banned. This makes no sense especially since I did not touch that article, nor contribute to it in any way whatsoever. I have familiarity with wikipedia format because I actually do my homework and read through the tutorial before I posted, and wiki format is not extremely difficult to pick up. If you do not want to handle the AN/I problem in question, that is up to you that hurts the authenticity of wikipedia articles, but for one of the administrators in question to pose a suspected sock incident is inadequate. Basically what you are saying is that if someone wants to bring up a suspected "alliance" created by editors and administrators, they will be banned without question whether they edit it or not. This would not make sense and really hurts the future of unbias wikipedia articles being created. Treasuryrain (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue has nothing to do with familiarity with the wikipedia format. The issue is that he has intimate knowledge of the details of an incident to which he has no reason to have any exposure.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement. When I came across an article that seemed bias, I merely looked through the lengthy history and discussion pages of it, which is available to the public in every wikipedia article. Those details are available to every editor. Treasuryrain (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, you named me in your statement at ANI. I have never edited the article or its talk page ever... Hmmm?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After I saw the history of the article, I was wondering why the other parties were not involved it it anymore, and I noticed that they were all banned on the terms of sock puppetry, and your name was on the discussion pages and enforcing bans. That is a reason I believed that there was some alliance. I never accused you of directly editing the article. It seems like when anyone even questions the article, they are categorized as a sock puppets. Treasuryrain (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, entirely wrong. What makes them categorized as sockpuppets, and the only thing that mattered in this case before you injected yourself into it, was that the accounts made substantially identical edits:  and .  Two independent people, who don't know each other, do not sit at their computer, type independently, and make entire paragraphs of text that are identical.  Based on this evidence, it was clear the two accounts were being operated by the same person.  The two accounts were blocked on that specific physical evidence, and not for any opinions they may have held.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your reasoning for suspecting them as sock puppets, but I am just seeing it from another perspective. When I came across this article, I did see that there were people trying so hard to put some things up on the Oxford Round Table and immediately those facts got take down for one reason or another. Quite honestly, I have no idea if those users who were banned knew each other or not, but all I am saying is that someone who had knowledge on this subject, could have created a name, looked through the history or revisions, and believing that those facts needed to be added to the article, put them back up there. There are users who create names on wikipedia every day because they do not want to disclose their IP addresses. It may seem like a sock puppet, but it might not be. Either way, its not my job to appeal to their bans, if they feel like they are not socks, thats up to them to do, I just wanted to understand why the article was under so much protection and close watch by a group of the same users. All I was trying to do was contribute to the fairness of an article I came across, not stir up controversy. Treasuryrain (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your explanation would be more convincing if you could explain how you came to be interested in Oxford Round Table issues. We do use behavior as evidence in sockpuppet cases, and someone who jumps into Wikipedia to go straight as an arrow to a hotly contested area will draw attention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...Is it time to archive this case, per below? All the suspects are blocked. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar shows highly likely sockpuppet. Blocked per RFCU and edit patterns. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions