Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Imbilly


 * 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:Imbilly

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

First, and foremost, I would like to state the obvious, by saying that both accounts have the name "Billy"
 * Evidence

Next of all, I would like to mention the style in which they write, Imbilly made this awards page, and Billy227 has made several edits to Wikipedia, so finding a page is not hard.

Being a vandaliser in heart, Billy227 often broke the civil policy, SHOUTING WORDS IN ALL-CAPS and otherwise putting others down.

The Imbilly account may be taken as a "bad hand" account, as it was used mainly for vandalism, and was blocked indefinitely. The Billy227 account was created a short while before Imbilly was blocked, and the puppeteer continued to use Billy227 for legitimate edits.

When it was stated that he had the Imbilly account on his talk page, Billy227 replied "do not affiliate me in any way, shape or form with that account you spoke of. I have no clue about whose account that is." If he really did not know who that account was, he would've looked into it more, instead of denying it flatly as if it were preposterous that he could be connected to it at all.

As my closing statement, I would like to announce that, as we are familiar in real life, I know that he has specifically admitted to having the Imbilly account, he worded it like so: "Come on Tim, I had my Imbilly account way before you joined Wikipedia!"

Tim.bounceback is also a friend from school, and I believe he should be able to confirm this, as well as help point out facts that I've missed.

Comment: A a vandaliser!? i have not engaged in any such actions! Also, could you please link to some pages where I supposedly "Broke the civil policy"? And even if I did break it, what does that have to do with supposedly "Being a sock puppet"? These entire accusation is blasphemy. Also, this account has never been in another discussion/vote that I have been in. How can this be called a sock puppet? Also, looking at my account, I see that it was made in January of 2007. Looking at this other account (Imbilly), was blocked in April. How can you possibly tell me that my account was made shortly after this other one was blocked when there is in fact a 3 month gap in between these events.? Furthermore, me and this other account share no similarities in style of writing. If you think we do, could you please link to some examples. And finally, the user making this accusation was accused of being a sock puppet before. How can people be sure that he just wants to accuse others because he was. That is all. -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments

Comment: Oh, and lastly. I didn't "Flatly deny" your previous accusation (which you mentioned above). Nor did I have to "Look into it". I know this is my only account, so I had no need to investigate. -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: OK, here's my response. You broke the civil policy several times on your userpage and Tim's. Consider reading into it. Second of all, read the policy on sockpuppetry To see what is considered to be unacceptable. Third of all, Assume good faith, I agreed to be a second account to AFYFAF due to restrictions, but only because someone changed my password. Lastly, you are obviously lying, as you dropped the Imbilly account as if it were a vandaliser, but you didn't even know him, is that possible? Thank you for clearing up some misunderstandings. Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Can you give specific links to diffs of these supposed "Civil policy breaking". Also, what you claim I did is not "unacceptable" anyway. This other account did not ever agree with me (or was even involved for that matter) in any sort of discussion or vote. Explain that? Also, if I supposedly did something "unacceptable", please specify exactly what that was. Thanks! -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Oh, jeez, just read the policy, will you? It says specifically! Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Firstly, please be nice. Secondly, I wish for you to specify where. Otherwise, your argument holds no ground. -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: OK, quote: "RAHK EX! This is a new user that you are talking to! Please DO NOT act in such an innapropiate manner towards the newcomers. You comments will be put under a new header. Shame!" OK? Just read the policy, it's not hard... Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Okay buddy, cool down. My comment was justified. You yourself weren't being nice to another uesr (PhishRCool). I neded to make my comments clear. Also, please answer the rest of my questions (see above). Thank you. -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Also, how can you call me a vandal? in fact, I have over 500 anti-vandal edits. Can you explain that please? -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Read the sockpuppetry policy section on good hand/bad hand, and all will become clear. Besides, point me to a part in the policy that says that jokes are not allowed (referring to PhishRCool) Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The last edits made with this other account were quite a long time ago. Also, you're comments weren't a joke. They were just plain being mean. Also, this whole accusation is ridiculous. You only did this because Tim told you to. You don't believe any of what you're typing do you? I think we should get some more commenters other than just us two? Sound good? -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Also, I made no such comment stating that this other account was mine. Don't lie please! -Billy227, Review my account!! talk contribs sndbx usbx 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I see absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry here. User:Billy227 and User:Imbilly have edited entirely different pages, and personally I see no resemblance in style between either user. I'm trusting Billy227 when he says he doesn't know about the Imbilly account; I'm not buying this "good hand/bad hand" business, and I think that Billy227's seriously being treated unjustly here. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I also do not see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Billy is an extremely common name, so I do not think that provides any evidence to suggest they are related. I do not think there editing styles are similar. Saying that Billy227 is a "vandaliser in heart" seems to be a breach of WP:AGF. And we have no evidence to show that he said in real life that also owns the Imbilly acount. -- M s  c  h  e  l  01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I will remain neutral but you have been canvassing user talk pages so I would firstly stop this, however I will remain neutral. &mdash; The Sunshine  Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I also do not see any sockpuppetry here, but if it makes you feel better request a checkuser. But, I doubt it's a sock.-- ROASTY TOAST  22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Doubt there's a connection between the two. A big issue is the nom said that Billy (the account in question) had said he owned the Imbilly account. To me, it seems like that statement could have been made up, and it's very circumstantial evidence wise. --Whsitchy 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * No compelling evidence of any connection between these two accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)