Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Enorton


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Enorton

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * 69.150.147.138 signs a post as "Enorton08"
 * Vast evidence of all four accounts editing the same articles over long periods examples include: Kansas City City Hall and Kay Burns as well as uploading a large about of copyrighted pictures related to Kansas City, Missouri. (See Enorton's contributions and 69.150.147.138 contributions
 * 70.237.191.6 engages in a battle on the Talk:Missouri page weather or not to include largest metro in the infobox
 * 69.150.147.138 and Enorton attempts to evade WP:3RR to remove this information revert one, revert two, revert three, revert four.
 * Enorton 'agrees' with himself(69.150.147.138) at Talk:Missouri about the issue. diffs
 * These two users continue to work in unison to revert changes made to the page. (diff1 diff2)

In my opinion the fact that the anon ip signed a post as Enorton08 is pretty damning in itself. But I'm closely related one of the issues that Enorton is involved in so I think someone else should make the decision about banning this user. Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Comment by Uninvolved


 * Enorton and Enorton08 may have a legimate explanation. 08 started editing first and then stopped for a long time.  Enorton then took over.  Perhaps, the editor left the password at the work computer.  Does either user ever say that the other person supports his/her position? If so, sockpuppets.  If not, then it may be a permitted use of sockpuppets.
 * City Hall building in Kansas City is almost solely edited by Enorton only with only a single edit by an IP and not the other 2 accused.
 * The most important criteria of abusive sockpuppetry is whether or not the users are advocating a wacky point of view or if the suggested edits raise valid points.
 * I raise these points but do not advocate either a determination of sockpuppetry or not except that, given the editing history of Enorton08 is longer than Enorton, Enorton cannot be the sockpuppetmaster as accused. Enorton08 could be the puppetmaster but is not being accused of such.
 * I will be making comments on the Missouri (talk) page to try informal mediation.VK35 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this sock puppet thing and don't always know how to handle the situation. My main concern is that Enorton and one of his ips were backing each other up (meatpuppets) on the Talk:Missouri page. Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that the suspected sockpuppeteer was never notified of this case. Please do so. We require that for a reason, so that the person suspected of puppetry can speak in his or her defense, or explain the circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He was notified at the creation of the case by placing the proper template on his user page. Grey Wanderer | Talk 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See instruction number 9, at the top, please. The suspected puppeteer should be notified on his/her talk, and it's generally good form, though not specifically instructed, to do the same with the puppet accounts. Not everyone routinely checks their user page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your right. It has been fixed. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * 70.237.191.6's edits are months old and aren't relevant here.
 * Enorton08 is an obvious sock of Enorton, and the connection between 69.150.147.138 and Enorton08 is obvious from this diff:.
 * Enorton08 indef blocked, IP blocked for 24 hours and Enorton blocked for 48 hours for violations of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)