Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SlimVirgin


 * 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:SlimVirgin

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

NathanLee 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

Tag team reverting on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals page to avoid 3RR. Similar topics editing in history. Date/time editing that seems suspiciously related. e.g. pick any day and it appears there is a block of one editing, then flick over to another, then back etc. A link between the two (an award from one to the other) e.g. patting each other on the back. Another user also thought there was some affiliation between the users (Jav43). Confusion between which of the two users was which (on a topic on the holocaust). Attempt to censor any suggestion that the two users appeared to be the same person on the discussion forum (May not be an issue if this is regarded as non civil behaviour?). User removed the link from the sock puppet request for check page saying "quit it". Surely this is not how a request for investigation is meant to be "resolved". If this investigation confirms there's no sock puppet actions then fine: but surely it is not the place of the person being questioned to decide to remove their link.


 * Comments

Seemed like similar behaviour of the two users (e.g. continuous reverting of other's work where common habit would be to mark things as needing revision/citation etc)


 * The problem with things like this is that most of these users have had accusations made against them many times before, since well known editors generally make quite a few enemies, and they are also well known and trusted members of the Wikipedia community - SlimVirgin is probably a name that is known to nearly every editor who knows anything of the politics of Wikipedia. Calls for investigations like these just waste resources, and thus tend to get removed as being a waste of time. Also, editors on Wikipedia often edit similar topics and tag team revert. --Philosophus T 09:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * fair enough, I'm not going to push it if it seems this user is magically regarded as beyond question or investication: BUT it certainly doesn't seem the proper way for an editor to act: either tag teaming OR self determining to close an investigation. That's like a judge making the decision to abort a trial on themselves. NathanLee 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * This is a waste of time. These are established editors, and the "evidence" here is a vague "they're doing the same stuff" without even a single diff given. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)