Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Merechriolus

User:Merechriolus

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Baegis (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Merechriolus posted this rationale for adding an NPOV tag to the AIDS article. Notice, he didn't sign his name. It was reverted by OrangeMarlin, who gives his reasoning here. Hours later, an "anonymous IP poster" agreed with Merechriolus about the inclusion of the NPOV tag, seen here, and added a comment about deleting a part of the article about conservatives being misinformed about AIDS. The anon poster also did not sign. 11 minutes later, Merechriolus made an edit which removed the very comment the "anon ip" mentioned, seen here. Here, Merechriolus edits the talk page comment from the IP. When I mentioned how doing this is not exactly looked upon with happiness, Merechriolus replies with this comment, which cements the whole sockpuppet case. For the icing on the cake, the IP made this edit in November of last year to the IKEA talk page. Today, Merechriolus made an edit where he added further to the ip's post and signed his name under it. Finally, on his user page, Merechriolus makes very clear he is here for the purpose of "De-POVing" articles. The two current projects? IKEA and AIDS. Case closed. Baegis (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence

Alright, I finally got around to making this. Sorry for being rude and terse before, but I fixed my other comments here to be more professional. At the time they were made, I was tired and agitated. What follows is not a rationale for why 24.183.176.163 is not a sock puppet (though I maintain that the account is not), but is instead rationale for why, whether or not the account is a sock puppet, my account should not be banned.
 * Comments

First of all, I would say that if 24.183.176.163 was a sock puppet of mine (and yet again, I maintain that the account is not) I have not abused it in any way. Although I suppose the rules for subsidiary accounts would be violated by me not including links to my account, the only time I have ever even referred to myself (and I maintain that THIS WAS NOT ME) would have been here. In this case, although the account did reference me, it provided definite rational input on the discussion and did not vote on anything. Other than that, the account has never been used to vote on anything else either, or anything even like that, so I see no way in which I used my account, the supposed sock puppet account, or used both accounts jointly to be disruptive or gain the system by voting twice.

Therefore, I would like to request that whether or not an admin decides that this is a sock puppet of mine, the admin assumes in good faith that no disruption will be caused, has been caused, or is actively being caused; the admin assumes in good faith that this account never has been and never will be used to "vote twice"; and the admin assumes in good faith that, by not issuing blocks, I will never use this account again (and again, I maintain that I never have). This entire ordeal has already served as a giant warning anyways. Thank you.Merechriolus (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that this is the account being used by my sibling, and not me. Anyway, we share similar viewpoints, and ended up working together on the very brief project on modifying IKEA (for the better). Go ahead and do checkuser, but we share the same IP address, given that we are on the same network.Merechriolus (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, you and your modfriend make me want to not edit articles like this. All I do is add a tag, my brother replies when he's angered by Orange, and now I'm facing this? Wow.
 * Not sure who my "modfriend" is but unfortunately for you, there is a small caveat to the WP mantra. The free encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you follow the rules!  Baegis (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like providing rationale for reverting edits when it's clearly contested? Due to the unique situation I'm in, I don't expect to be mitigated, although that would be nice. All I want is to resolve this Aids dispute before anything else.Merechriolus (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a content question to be answered on the appropriate talk page. This page is for the sock puppet case at hand.  It would serve you best if you stay on point.  Baegis (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was limited, and referred you to the aids article. Back on topic, though.Merechriolus (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I still maintain that I am not guilty, I recognize that the evidence is very strong. If I were to plead guilty, then I can't see how I'll have broken any rules. Therefore, if an admin decides the evidence is overwhelming and despite my rationale for not blocking me, a block is in order, then I will submit to any allegations and plead guilty if it will help at all.Merechriolus (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) This looks like a possible violation of WP:MEAT, but the user seems to understand that there is a problem and I am hopeful that there will be no more recurrences. Close family members working together on the same article may be treated as a single editor. A word to the wise is sufficient. Jehochman Talk 09:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions