Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Poyoyloar

User:Poyoyloar

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

-- Nsevs •  Talk  00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This sockpuppetry has come to light as I have been involved with these two editors and their pursuit of the WP:SSP case below: Suspected_sock_puppets/ArchieHall. These are two accounts created within a week of each other whose single purpose has been promoting the deletion of Mike Watt (writer) and Amy Lynn Best, pursuing the authors of said articles via the sockpuppet case referenced above, and making a few trivial edits to other film-related articles.
 * Evidence

Similar editing patterns:
 * First edits:  vs.
 * "Requesting speedy deletion" at User talk pages instead of placing db templates:         vs.

They have backed each other up on AfDs in connection with the alleged sockpuppets below: And at the referenced sockpuppet case below (forgive me for not including the diffs since it's right there).
 * Articles for deletion/Mike Watt (writer):
 * Articles for deletion/Amy Lynn Best:  (both in multiple edits)

As far as their comments go on the sockpuppet issue, they sound very similar in parts:
 * "You are new around here, that's why you can't figure out why you were caught." vs. "You are obviously new to these parts."
 * "While he blames friendship with other account holder as cause, still implies form of sockpuppetry" "suggesting that you ARE close friends to Mike Watt. Even then, if you cared to read Wiki policy, this is called Meatpuppetry."

This last bit is especially strange since both brand-new users seem to have an uncanny grip of Wikipedia policy. (See for one explanation.)

I have added to the list of suspected sockpuppets. This is an account that was previously accused of sockpuppetry about a year ago, but never followed up with (as far as I can tell). The account was dormant until today when he deleted the comment, calling it "blantant vandal" (which is OK since it is his talk page), but consistent with Poyoyloar and Tromatical deleting my warnings that this case is active. (addition: Fearedhallmonitor did the same thing Nsevs  •  Talk  17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Additional evidence

He also added a comment to User talk:MikeWatt out of the blue. In the process, he deleted a good-faith comment I had made, which is consistent with behavior by Poyoyloar:. -- Nsevs •  Talk  16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

Mates, this is rubbish.

joining in a consensus against a troublesome editor is hardly sockpuppetry.

if you examine my contributions history u will discover that my contributions does not match with the other

the only connection between I and the other editor is that we both seemingly read the same myspace blog whereby a mike Watt complains that his wikipedia article is about to be erased.

The sole reason i joined this debate is because I am a member of the mike Watt happy cloud pictures myspace group. he sent out a blog asking his friends if we would help him prevent his article from being erased. I did not feel comfortable doing this since it is against wiki policy to join up against other editors. so I joined the consensus started by poyoyloar to report his actions.

I do confess outta laziness it was easier to cut & paste poyoloar's original complaint instead of rewriting my own when helping report the user in question. if this causes problems, my humble apology.

my intent was to warn the troublesome editor about the problems he was causing where the other editor poyoyloar was not doing this as a courtesy. if it helps to clear up this confusion please investigate my internet provider address so u can rule me out as a dual user.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromatical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Shalom: I think Poyoyloar and Traumatical are sockpuppets of each other and, lacking any significant positive contribution history, should be indef-blocked. I do not see sufficient evidence to connect either of these two accounts with Fearedhallmonitor. As recent events have made me only too aware, suspicions of sockpuppetry against editors with more than three months of experience must be treated with the utmost caution. Basically it's alleged that FHM made one or two edits in agreement with the aforementioned two users, and hadn't edited for a few months before that. It's just not enough evidence. You can ask for checkuser if you want, but I would drop it.

In addition to the evidence already presented to linke Poyoyloar and Traumatical, I have more. Both added the word "Sup" to userpages: Both removed warnings about suspected sockpuppetry on April 15, one at 1:05 and the other at 1:09, just four minutes later: The correlation on which days these two accounts edited on is nonrandom. Both edited on April 13, April 14, April 15, April 20, and April 22. Tromatical edited on only six days in April; on five of those days, Poyoyloar also edited, and the sixth was a difference of one day (April 6 for Poyoyloar; April 7 for Traumatical).
 * Tromatical's second edit
 * Poyoyloar's first edit.
 * Poyoyloar at 01:05
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tromatical&diff=prev&oldid=205688477

Taken as a whole, the evidence is sufficient to justify a block on these two accounts. I reiterate that I don't see a connection between them and Fearedhallmonitor. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fearedhallmonitor is the oldest account and should have been listed as the master. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * I would have, but he didn't come out of the woodwork until a day later... -- Nsevs •  Talk  12:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced by the evidence that this is a case of sockpuppetry (with Fearedhallmonitor being the puppetmaster). Tromatical's protestations are unconvincing, for the reason that those few of his edits which are unrelated to the contentious subject, such as this edit, are insubstantial, and seem calculated to make it appear as if he has other interests.GSTQ (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed to sort this and the ArchieHall SSP out. They're quite intertwined. 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See Requests for checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, All socks, plus a new one. Poyoyuloar blocked one week, socks indef. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)