Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TheEditrix2

User:TheEditrix2

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Eustress (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

On page Temple garment, I undid an edit originally by AuntieMormom. This user said (I'm assuming she) she undid my undo for certain reasons, but the history for the page shows that TheEditrix2 made the change. Both userpages appear a bit mysterious: TheEditrix2's reads, "My policy: Leave me alone. I'll delete any additions to my talk pages, unread," while AuntieMormom's only reads, "A stickler for NPOV."
 * Evidence

Both user accounts were created at almost the same time (19 July 2006 and 9 June 2006), and while both accounts overlap on some of the same religion-topic pages, it appears that AuntieMormom (which has a mere 190 edit count compared to TheEditrix2's 1839) is only used for religion-topic battle support.

If I'm wrong, then fine, but the evidence merits definite investigation. Thank you!


 * Comments

Ugh. Leave me alone. Go re-read the comment you're "reporting." It's not a sockpuppet if the so-called "sockpuppet" is the person who actually alerted you to an accidental edit under someone else's login. This computer is open to many users. Failure to logout happens. -- TheEditrix2 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Wikipedia logout a user when idle for a short period of time? --Eustress (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not Editrix2, though I probably owe Editrix2 an apology for not closing the login before I went online. I mistakenly assumed I was the last person on this connection. I was wrong, but I rectified the problem immediately and pointed it out on the talk page.

In any event, I'm a little miffed at Eustress for creating a problem out of nothing. You know about the mistaken login only because I drew it to your attention on the talk page. What's with the accusation of sockpuppetry? Try assuming the best about editors. And you might want to reconsider flinging about accusations. Do you have any evidence for "only used for religion-topic battle support"? If not, you're invited to withdraw the accusation.

And no, WP doesn't override roboform. AuntieMormom (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Auntie,
 * You shouldn't be miffed at me...your original edit (assuming your guys' story is true) was under Editrix2's account, and then on the talk page under AuntieMormom you wrote "Reverted because "affront" (see dictionary.com definition) is the more precise word. Precise word choice trumps imprecise words. AuntieMormom (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008"--you said nothing about making a mistake logging out (but added an explanation later). That, and the fact that your stats indicate that you edit almost exclusively religion-topic pages and the fact that your accounts were created at approximately the same time seemed like it merited investigation--innocent until proven guilty--you have a chance to defend yourself on this page, and it appears it may have been an innocent mistake on your part, but don't get mad at me for your problem. I'll suggest the case now be closed. Best wishes. --Eustress (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears that accused parties share a computer and simply forgot to log out of account in question during incident. I suggest now closing case. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions