Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1


 * 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:Kmaguir1

 * Evidence

User created account User:Truthseekers solely to make edit to Michel Foucault to avoid 3RR detection in insertion of homophobic original research. Edit made was identical to one made only by User:Kmaguir1, who has been skirting the edge of 3RR on above article and on Judith Butler since an earlier 3RR block. Specifically, after Kmaguir1 became aware of 3RR blocking, he made three reversions to Foucault within a few hours; about 15 minutes after the 3rd such reversion, the new account "Truthseekers" was created, and its first edit was restoration of this identical disputed material. Following that, Truthseekers went on to make two addition such reversions (but staying at 3, rather than making 4; out of an apparent concern for 3RR policy).

Kmaguir1 has used the phrase "truthseeker" repeatedly on my user talk page, and on Talk:Judith Butler in the last couple hours. Not a lot of creativity was involved in choice of sock-puppet name. LotLE × talk 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny additional detail: "Truthseekers" second edit was to East Memphis, Memphis, which is where Kmaguir1's user page says he lives. Of course, at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which Truthseekers somehow stumbled across on his 4th edit, he emphatically denies being Kmaguir1. LotLE × talk

Also: Truthseekers now edits User talk:Kmaguir1 to remove the sock-puppet template:

Distinctive archaism in using the word "agreeance": Truthseekers ; Kmaguir1 ([?]). LotLE × talk 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On User talk:Truthseekers, "Truthseekers" makes the comment:

"There was no sock puppet notice on my page, only some drivel posted by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters explaining the three re-edit rule to me, which I had not even come close to violating yet. The sock puppet warning is on my friend's webpage, and he hasn't taken it down. -Truthseekers 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

However, there was a sock-puppet notice on the Truthseekers account (removed by Truthseekers as his only edit to his userpage), but a 3RR notice only on the Kmaguir1 account. The (repeated) slippage in the use of "my account" to describe the other account makes it pretty clear that this is a self-identical person rather than merely a "close friend" as purported. LotLE × talk

It appears Kmaguir1 has now added the sockpuppet User:Sonofhealfdane to carry on a make-believe conversation with himself on Talk:Michel Foucault. This account had made a couple earlier edits back in december, but none since until suddenly discovering the need to restore Kmaguir1's contentious original-research on the article.


 * Comments


 * I have already explained kmaquir1 is my compatriot. You'll find I made an edit on the East Memphis page because I am also a resident of East Memphis. I know it's fairly unheard of that more than one person lives in or around East Memphis, much less that they also use wikipedia. Lulu's attacks are amusing, but tiring and unfounded. If you'll search his/her webpage, you'll find that "truthseeker" or "truth seeker" is not mentioned in a single instance, despite the claims. Even if it were, that makes no case for me being a "sock puppet". If any other phantasms of Lulu's imagination emerge, please ensure that I am not included in his paranoid attacks. -Truthseekers 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * this is rediculous. -Truthseekers 06:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet? Truthseekers’ a friend of mine—I resent that you think I would pretend to be someone else—I wanted to get some community involvement, etc. Come on—bringing more people onto wikipedia only helps us. I have never used the word “truthseeker” on Lulu’s page. I think she’s enraged that I did what Wikipedia is supposed to do—go out and bring new people into the community. Didn't mean to delete the message she left either--didn't really read the regulations on it. -Kmaguir1 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean he's a new user--what do you expect him to be able to read, when he all of a sudden gets thrown into a sock-puppetry battle? Hell, I don't even know anything about it. He probably got rid of it because he didn't want his page cluttered (the First thing on his page!) with sock-puppetry allegations. I would tell him to do the same thing--before reading the rules. I'm sure he didn't mean any harm by that--and apologies all around if that "thwarts the process". But we're different people, using different computers, different IPs, and I wasn't ordering anything. I am not a liar, and take strong exception to the allegation I am one. I expect to be vindicated, and I expect that for me, Wikipedia will be vindicated in that it will find me righteous before these untruths. -Kmaguir1 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So "Kmaguir1" didn't mean to perform the deletion that was performed by "Truthseekers"? That's the problem with trying to juggle sockpuppets: you get confused about which account you were logged into when doing a given thing.  LotLE × talk  07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no pronoun in that sentence, and while lazy grammatically, it was referring to him--it is difficult to get things unconfused when you're trying to explain to a friend right next to you how to format and how to defend you on a page. But I mean, look at the IP addresses--he works late, and he was editing of his own volition on his own wikipedia account--now, if you think I was coercing him--that's another charge. See comments on Talk:Judith Butler for a more empirical discussion (they'll be up soon). -Kmaguir1 07:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Did he delete it from mine or his? Oh, mine, according to Lulu. -Kmaguir1 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But let this be said: I did not, per policy, put any words into anybody's mouth. He agreed with my assessment. It's just ridiculous we have to go through this. -Kmaguir1 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a sock-puppet! This is ridiculous... I'm a friend of Kmaguir1's from school -Truthseekers 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created the RFCU page for confirmation, Requests for checkuser/Case/Kmaguir1. Iola k ana |T 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nearly the first thing Kmaguir1/Truthseekers did after creating the new account was loudly proclaim "Check my IP address". This hints that he perhaps moved to a different machine as part of the deception attempt (or shelled in to a proxy, or the like).  Of course, he may have messed up that attempted separation in later posts, but the IP addresses themselves may not show the sock-puppetry.  LotLE × talk  16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because it's the most easily verifiable way to determine that this is not simply an account created and used by the same person. I'm still waiting for actual evidence supporting "sock puppetry". As it stands now, I, Truthseekers, have de-bunked every poorly erected shard of evidence you've purported. You present nothing new other than POV to support your claim that I am a sock puppet. You can't begin to grasp, for some reason, that I am in agreeance with Kmaquir1 about the information in question and simply exercised my ability to edit a Wikipedia page. It would seem you would wish Wikipedia to be your own little fascist state, where you determine all correct and relevant information. Thankfully, this is not the case. That doesn't discourage you from using the established avenues of complaint improperly to further your end. I suggest punitive action be taken against user Lulu for his misuse of the safeguard of Wikipedia. -Truthseekers 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We just know its you, Kmaguir1. The word "agreeance" gives you away.  Maybe its a Memphis thang?--Agnaramasi 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that shows poorly for your intellegence level then if you base this belief soley off of the use of the word "agreeance". As I have already established, Kmaquir1 and myself are good friends in real life. Not only is it ludicrious to insinuate that Kmaquir1 is the only person to ever use the word "agreeance", but it is equally silly to hypothesize that two well-aquianted peoples' style of speech and writing won't rub-off on each other. The vindictive nature of this acusation is so amusing. The simplest explaination for all of this is rejected so violently in leui of such a crack-pot theory. Hahaha, priceless. -Truthseekers 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That usage certainly is distinctive; could you put the specific diffs from both up in the "evidence" section? That would help demonstrate the point. LotLE × talk  00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said in several places, I suspect that the users are two different persons. That does not excuse anyone for meatpuppetry, unless being a new editor is an excuse. (Arguably, it is. But the less new editor, Kmaguir1, should have known better.) Truthseekers, you can stop referring to "you all." As you see, we all are not in agreement on everything. Thanks.--Anthony Krupp 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, you shouldn't be grouped together. It seems the consensus for accusing myself and Kmaquir1 shifts to accomadate lesser claims now that people have started to realize the huge pile of untruth they are standing on. I think the only one still clinging to the chilish hope of the original accusation is Lulu. I have still failed to see any evidence supporting meat pupperty either. All I have seen is POV that claims I created the account at the behest of Kmaquir1 to circumvent the three-R rule. I've easily refuted this, simply saying that I created the account out of my outrage at the tyrannical censorship that was taking place in the article and my agreeance with Kmaquir1 on the issue that it had to stop. It rests upon to you prove I did not post of my own volition, a task, I might add, that is considerably daunting. Take off the tinted glasses you are seeing issues through, you'll find things to be alot clearer. -Truthseekers 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think meatpuppetry is defined as you posting against your volition. If the effect of your earliest postings are to insert material that another user cannot because of the 3RR, then you were in effect a meat puppet. At least that's how I understand the use of the term here. Others who've been around longer can clarify. In any case, Truthseekers, you can read WP:SOCK and see for yourself what is and what is not allowed here. Again: although you began your tenure here as a meatpuppet, one can hope that you will become your own person. Your most recent edits seem to show this, which is why I have advised that we cut you a break. You might at this point also read WP:CIVILITY. Might help ensure that others cut you a break as well. That's all for today.--Anthony Krupp 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if this is a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, the behavior (even if collaborative) was clearly intended to try to perform an action that would otherwise be prohibited and sanctioned. As I comment on another talk page, meatpuppetry doesn't mean absence of volition, but simply collusion to a bad purpose.  LotLE × talk  17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then prove it. I joined to post about facts that you didn't like. That's as much as you've got to run on. also, the added "proof" adds nothing to your care. As one who is unbiased can surmise, myself and Kmaquir1 were checking up on each other's pages while the accusations from the volitile Lulu flew. It's also not hard to fathom that I carelessly edited my page, unknowing of the rule, seeing as Lulu began his sladerous attacks within 5 minutes of me joining the boards. However the evidence may have appeard to Lulu, one fact is sure: Lulu of the Lotus Eaters was rude and slanderous to a new member within 5 minutes of me joining the boards, and did so off of shakey evidence at the mercy of his own emotions. -Truthseekers 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Accountability

Lulu called Truthseekers a sockpuppet. She initiated an investigation in furtherance of this--so SHE has to deal with that. She should be penalized for falsely calling him a sockpuppet, for so maligning the both of us. And you can already see she is beginning to backslide--that she admits the possibility of meatpuppetry, etc. No, no. She initiated a sockpuppetry, so she believes sockpuppetry. Let's not discuss here, or elsewhere, meatpuppetry, until we've dismissed Lulu's charge of sockpuppetry. Period. She can't backslide from her original stance, she has to be held accountable. -Kmaguir1 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have no sense of accountability for your own actions? If you have no sockpuppet, then the tag will come down, and in the future perhaps you will avoid behaviours that look like sock or meat puppetry. You're wasting so much of everyone's time. Tiresome. Just read and reread WP:CONSENSUS and the other rules and guidelines, then edit. Focus on content, not on people. See you on the talk pages.--Anthony Krupp 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I raised the accountability issue here.-Kmaguir1 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take that as a no.--Anthony Krupp 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruling

There has already been a ruling and a small punitive action has been taken against my friend, Kmaquir1. However, no punative action has been taken against me and the ruling appears to acknowledge that I am no sock puppet. Since there has already been a ruling, I expect the acusations from Lulu and others to cease immediatly. Should further slander continue, I'm sure Wikipedia offers some solution against personal attack, as that's what such maliciousness would be. -Truthseekers 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There has not, of course, actually been any action taken on this sockpuppet violation at this time. Kmaguir1 did receive a rather smaller 3RR block than he earned, but the Truthseekers account was left unblocked in the meanwhile.  Hopefully a more substantial block of both accounts can happen.  LotLE × talk  22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "User:Kmaguir1 and sock-puppet User:Truthseekers reported by User:LotLE×talk (Result: User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24hrs)". taken directly from the Wikipedia Administrator's message board. Must I remind you of the personal attack policy? I'm sure it's against the spirit of Wikipedia for someone to continually and endlessly accuse other users, as you seem to enjoy doing. -Truthseekers 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my statements about Son's claims on the Michel Foucault talk page. I support blocking him for as long as an admin feels justified. That sort of hyperbole, it's disastrous. And frankly, I'm insulted someone would call him my sock. N oevidence would exist for this, naturally. -Kmaguir1 07:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia


 * Lulu says the last edits Son made were in December--I hadn't made an edit on wikipedia on this time--how is she claiming this occurred? -Kmaguir1 07:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean, I would think we don't have the same IP address, although some fraternity houses share this IP, I doubt it was them. Just again, I want to iterate my disgust with those comments. Pure unmitigated disgust. -Kmaguir1 07:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu appears to have a vivid imagination, one that spills over and disrupts Wikipedia, apparently. -Truthseekers 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU came back possible, as well as another sock. Both [Truthseekers and another one] have been blocked. Iola k ana |T 13:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)