Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PStrait


 * 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:PStrait

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

(may be another sockpuppet or a meatpuppet)
 * Suspected sockpuppets

--Muchness 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

Herbertmarcuse started editing a couple of hours after PStrait was blocked for a 3RR violation on Mung. His first article space edit was a revert to resume PStrait's edit-warring on Mung. Compare the similarities in discussion style (PStrait vs Herbertmarcuse). BrettAWallace started editing soon after the content dispute started. His only edits are to the discussion page of the article in question, in support of PStrait's position.
 * Evidence


 * Comments

I may have violated the 'meatpuppet' rule here inadvertantly although I am not sure. Herbert Marcuse and BrettAWallace are colleagues of mine who asked what I was working on, read it, and chimed in. I did not invite them to do so and i certainly did not create their accounts. If I violated a policy, I apologize. Separately, I think this accusation by Muchness is simply backlash for my calling him out for vandalizing wikipedia. He repeatedly attempted to vandalize the "mung" page, and luckily the mediation cabal intervened to stop him. PStrait 06:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the vandalism policy: what you and Muchness are involved in at Mung is a content dispute, not vandalism. Furthermore, I've read your application to the Mediation Cabal and it was flatly rejected on the grounds that policy clearly contradicted your position. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Intially this was the case, but after further review, the mediator left in some of my content. I believed Muchness was vandalizing because s/he deleted content without answering all of my arguments in the discussion page.  It would be a content dispute if we simply disagreed on the content-- Muchness was interested making a few simple arguments, ignoring my responses, and just deleting.  The mediation compromise that left in part of my addition with a caveat seemed like what Muchness should have done if the motivation was truly to dispute content and not to vandalize my work.  Note that Muchness also referred to one of my other edits as "willfully disruptive."  For whatever reason, Muchness seems to dislike me and is willing to go after every thing I do on Wikipedia.  As Saxifrage pointed out, my edits to the "straw man" entry, and subsequent dispute, entail a "content dispute," not a "willfully disruptive edit."  I don't understand why Muchness choose to use this sort of tone.

PStrait 06:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of the above comments from PStrait and a suggestion from him on my talk page that I violated WP:AGF, I just want to clearly restate my reasons for suspecting sockpuppetry:
 * Herbertmarcuse's first article space edit was to resume PStrait's revert war about 2 hours after PStrait was blocked for 3RR and less than half an hour after the admin who closed the mediation case removed the disputed content.
 * Herbertmarcuse's first user talk page edit was a subst'ed test2a template (previously used by PStrait on my talk page).

Combined with the similarities in writing style, formatting, and edit summaries, these were in my judgment sufficient red flag edits to warrant waiving AGF and filing a suspected sockpuppetry case. --Muchness 09:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a "puppet" of any sort. I do know PStrait in the real world, but he did not direct me to make the edits that I made, and I am certainly not his "puppet."  In the future I will not make edits to articles also edited by PStrait if that is the official policy.  I understand the need to prevent one user from creating multiple accounts; this is not a case of that, however.  Herbertmarcuse

I will let them off, but I have warned all three users. Iola k ana • T 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Conclusions