Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dissectional

User:Dissectional

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by
 *  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seraphim Whipp 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Both users show big interest in the inclusion of nu metal in the infobox of the article on System of a Down as can be seen on the article's talk page. By looking in User:Dissectional's contributions, one can see 48 edits to the article's talk page, and judging only from the edits with edit summaries, 23 of those edits were directly related to the band's genre. User:74.124.33.181 has also shown similar interest in the System of a Down article: out of the user's 44 edits, 18 of those edits were on the article itself and its talk page (see user's contributions). The IP account has claimed that "System of a Down is not nu metal" here, and User:Dissectional expresses the same point of view here and here.


 * The users have shown similar ways of editing. User:Dissectional does not use apostrophes in terms like "I'll" or "Here's" (diff), and the IP account does the same (diff). Both accounts tend to leave the personal pronoun "I" uncapitalized (diff for Dissectional, diff for the IP).


 * User:Dissectional's user page claims he is from Toronto, Canada. Using the "WHOIS" tool, we can see the IP address also comes from this location. (WHOIS results for 74.124.33.181)


 * 19 of User:Dissectional's edits were linked directly to the Elect the Dead article. (see contribs) The IP address has blanked the article's talk page. (diff).


 * Dissectional has copied and pasted a post by User:Revan ltrl to User:Zouavman Le Zouave's talk page and expressed how he agreed with the post in general. (diff) The IP address has also copied and pasted this same statement on the System of a Down talk page. (diff). (Original post by User:Revan ltrl here)


 * Looking through the list of edits by User:Dissectional, one can see that he has never edited between 07:00 and 17:00 (Server time). Looking through the list of edits by the IP address, one can see that no edit has been made between 07:00 and 17:00 (Server time).


 * Comments
 * I believe that, if User:Dissectional and IP 74.124.33.181 turn out to be the same editor, that User:Dissectional is using this IP address to create the impression that there are more people supporting a side of the System of a Down debate (the side that supports the removal of "nu metal" from the infobox). The IP account said: "Myself along with other users have given our opinons as well" and, in another post "there has been more said to remove nu metal".  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the same editor for both of these users. I'm not doing it to make it seem as if more people agree with me. Im just too lazy to sign into my user account sometimes. Sorry for any confusion. 74.124.33.181 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Both myself and Zouavman Le Zouave have tried to assume good faith about this user. The above comment by 74.124.33.181/Dissectional doesn't really cut it as he has made these rather specific actions
 * 1) Decided a poll would be a good idea
 * 2) Was informed that the poll wasn't a good idea, so he removed it with his account, Dissectional, saying the poll was "unsuitable"
 * 3) I reinstated the post but put strikethroughs
 * 4) Editing under the IP address he tried to start the poll again despite telling another user that he knew it was not suitable already.

You can see from his talk page that I've tried to be as helpful as possible but circumventing discussion using IPs is very disruptive.

Seraphim Whipp 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason i was always signed on as Dissectional was because i never logged out. I must have deleted my browsing history which caused the log out, and my laziness caused me to use my IP adress instead. 74.124.33.181 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Self-admitted sockpuppetry. Despite the user's protestations, it does appear that he was trying to make it seem as if the named account and the IP were different people. However, now that the masquerade has been exposed, I don't see a pressing need to place any blocks; of course, any further disruption should be greeted with a firm response (e.g., a substantial block). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)