Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Strothra

User:Strothra

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Blublublub 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The following diffs show that the user Strothra and sockpuppet have been tag teaming on the Princeton University article. Strothra has engaged in an edit war, but each user name has made the exact same revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours to avoid the 3RR. Strothra has also accused me of 3RR (an accusation which has been resolved, since I have been trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page, and Strothra not) and both user names have edited my IP user page and the 3rr case page. The diffs are below.
 * Evidence

Princeton University revert diffs by sockpuppeteer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154909224 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154930023 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155035486

Princeton University revert diffs by sock puppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154786156 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154850686 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155148330

This is clearly avoiding the 3RR. Also, although it is only circumstantial evidence, both user names have also edited the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.49.28.218 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.49.28.218_reported_by_User:Strothra_.28Result:_24_hours.29

In the interest of full disclosure I am the IP who has been constantly reverted by this user and his/her sock puppet. I created an account to have access to making this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blublublub (talk • contribs)
 * Comments
 * This is absurd and a clear violation of WP:POINT potentially on a slippery slope to becoming harassment. User is trying to get some sort of revenge for a 3RR report made against him for which he was blocked only to be unblocked because the article was subsequently protected (per my own request).  User:Dcandeto and myself are established editors on Wiki and have long contrib histories, neither of which are related in substance or topics. Further, I could hardly be the puppeteer when I was the one who stepped into the preexisting edit conflict between Dcandeto and the unregistered user.  My edits came second.  Note that simply because two editors agree on inclusion when you are the only dissenting opinion does not make them sockpuppets, but simply that consensus is against you.  This editor, being new to Wikipedia, should realize that such accusations are offensive to established editors with positive contribution histories.  The internal disciplinary processes of Wikipedia are not intended as conduits for revenge.  Such use is an abuse of Wikipedia.--Strothra 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have opened up a checkuser request at in order to deal with this expediently.  --Strothra 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If it fits the suspicious behavior of sock puppeteering, it should be looked at. And two (or one?) against one is hardly a consensus, especially when one of the "consensus" admittedly goes to the school the article is on and has a clear bias. You were constantly making reverts and showed no willingness to discuss the issue. If you are not sock puppeteering you have my apologies, but you can hardly blame me for suspecting considering the evidence.  68.49.28.218 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two editors cooperating on a single article are simply in agreement - not sockpuppets particularly when their edit histories are quite different. That's where the WP:AGF policy kicks in.  You might want to use your registered username to edit Wikipedia from now on.  Editors are generally far more acquiesced to discuss edits with registered editors than with anons. --Strothra 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I assumed good faith, but after six reverts with no reason or willingness to discuss the section it seems reasonable not to.68.49.28.218 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You were constantly reinserting text that served no purpose but to push a particular point of view. Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is laughable.  I'd like a CheckUser, but it looks like neither Strothra nor I can request one to show that we aren't the same person.  Stop violating WP:POINT and other policies.  This is why we can't have nice things.  dcandeto 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The text served just as much purpose as any other ranking included in the article, and was relevant to the section it was in. It had been there for months (including before and after a major re-organization of the article).  There is nothing POV about the text.  There is something POV about removing it or editing it with false information.  I was open to discussion, but instead you just reverted it constantly and added false information to the article.  You may want to review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sock puppet dispute is resolved, all parties have commented, this isn't the place for the discussion you're trying to start. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification - this is not resolved so much as everyone has commented. My main point was that this is not the place for a POV discussion. sirmob 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser was denied and dcandeto isn't speaking here, so I will in his defence. While I cannot assert that Strothra is not a sockpuppet of dcandeto, having never heard of the second person before, I can certainly assert that dcandeto is not a sockpuppet but a honest-to-god flesh and blood human being who I consider my friend in the real world - which you could have discovered by looking at his and my user pages! And as Strothra has thousands of edits, the good money is on him existing as well. What you describe as "sock puppet" behavior is probably the result of a habit I have seen in dcandeto of erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to fix this" when he is busy and/or when a change seems obvious. "Obvious" is admittedly subjective! I can only hope that the parties accused find this as hilarious as I do - but this is doubtful. Whoever resolves these things - this is ridiculous, resolve it please. sirmob 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Ivy leaguers have friends?  Preposterous! --Strothra 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He should not be erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to revert this and add false information with no discussion" just because he is not comfortable with the facts presented in the text. That is not "fixing it." 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PLEASE DO NOT discuss the article and that dispute on this page. I wasn't excusing the behavior, I was describing to try to legitimately respond to your sockpuppeting concerns, which are what this page is about. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of sockpuppetry here. Strothra and Dcandeto are long-term editors with lots of edits. Sockpuppets with such long-contribution history would be expected to have supported each other in past discussions or share characteristics like similar misspellings or phrasing particularities. No such evidence has been presented. Based on the evidence here, the only evident conclusion is that two editors are in agreement about the same article.--Chaser - T 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions