Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Inetpup


 * 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:Inetpup

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppet

dcandeto 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

There has been a discussion at WikiProject Airports about whether to remove former destination cities from the various articles on airports (and also about a month ago). The consensus there appears to me to be to omit them, due to the fact that they are unencyclopedic and difficult to verify without original research, and that given the age of some airports, the lists could grow to be quite large. Inetpup was the lone dissenter.
 * Evidence

Despite this, Inetpup began reverting edits of anyone who removed the section on former routes, even when the relevant discussion was put in the edit summary. After Inetpup's second revert, and right at the end of a spate of edits by Inetpup, the account WikiFlyer was created.

Tonight, Inetpup reverted the removal of that section three times (here, here, and here), at which point I placed a 3RR warning on Inetpup's talk page. Soon thereafter, WikiFlyer made two edits to that page here and here; these two edits are currently the only two edits that WikiFlyer has made. (I believe that WikiFlyer did not realize that someone had already reverted to Inetpup's version, and thus accidentally reverted it to my version before reverting it back to Inetpup's.)

Given the fact that the reverts in question were all done with the "undo" feature, the similar writing style in the edit summaries, and the coincidences in the creation time of the WikiFlyer account and its sudden appearance after a 3RR warning on Inetpup's talk page, I believe that WikiFlyer is a sockpuppet of Inetpup, created in an attempt to circumvent the three-revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcandeto (talk • contribs).

WikiFlyer's account was created at 02:45, April 10, 2007. Inetpup edited at 02:39, April 10, 2007 and not again for 2 more hours. That shows that Inetpup was online about the same time as WikiFlyer's account was created, while not editing under that account at the same time. --Matt 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkuser confirms sockpuppetry. --Matt 23:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did the sockpuppet notice to Inetpup and the tagging of WikiFlyer's account as requested in steps 8 and 9. --Matt 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments

CheckUser might help here. dcandeto 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your allegation is false. Additionally, all of the following people supported the former routes section:
 * User:63.202.190.242
 * User:Petri Krohn
 * User:Bucs2004
 * User:Jordanhatch
 * User:70.134.86.166
 * We know they supported this section because they contributed content to this section or they reverted the page to ensure that the section was reinstated.--Inetpup 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But none of them have the same pattern of being created right before you got to the 3 revert rule. It's also not true that someone who contributes to a section necessarily believes it should exist. I edit grammar on sections I believe should be deleted, or add more data to attempt to make them complete in case a deletion fails. --Matt 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 63.202.190.242 never reverted any edits involving that section. Petri Krohn did so because he changed his mind as to which fork of the list to remove, not because he believed it should exist.  Bucs2004 never reverted any edits involving that section.  Jordanhatch did so only because they did not read my edit summary.  70.134.86.166 never reverted any edits involving that section.  I stand by my "lone dissenter" comment.  dcandeto 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcandeto, your presumptions border on arrogance. Your "lone dissenter" comment is false.  Please reread my statement (which is in plain English) and try to understand it.  It is evident from the following history log that those three users you claim to deny having supported the section, actually added content to it:


 * by 70.134.86.166
 * by 63.202.190.242
 * by Bucs2004


 * Also, your dishonesty is evident because you posted a complaint on my talk page after Jordanhatch reverted your edits, which he identified as vandalism (which incidentally is also a non-trivial allegation against your conduct). This implies that you had some level of frustration that at least two users were reverting your edits and I became a convenient outlet for your frustrations.--Inetpup 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to shift blame. This is the place to discuss sockpuppetry. I don't know what the proper way to move forward here is - does dcandeto have to request a checkuser now? --Matt 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not being dishonest at all. The complaint on your talk page was placed before Jordanhatch reverted my edits, not after, and Jordanhatch reverted the edits only because he did not read the edit summary.  Other than Jordanhatch, no one "reverted the page to ensure that the section was reinstated," as you claim.  dcandeto 05:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ WikiFlyer is confirmed as a sockpuppet of Inetpup via CheckUser. Not much else to do (can't really block unless they're further disruption). —210 physicq  ( c ) 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)