Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Til Eulenspiegel

User:Til Eulenspiegel

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Ben (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a single purpose account for use in a discussion on. Comparing the users only two edits: The first seemed reasonably well written, though they did seem a little too comfortable with wiki syntax (indentation, signing) and the use of talk pages, and I was amazed that someone seemed to have read through a very good portion of the argument (if not all of it) after this much time. I didn't think there was much reason for concern, after all, there are instructions to sign your name when you post, everyone else was indenting, and maybe they were really interested in the argument. Their second edit was totally different in style. It was a quick reply whose style was nothing like the first, in addition to knowledge of wiki syntax they now showed proficiency with Wikipedia terminology ("POV"). This style of reply had also been noted by myself a week earlier, from Til's account here. FimusTauri's assertion that many people do not accept the word myth is practically identical to Til's earlier assertion.
 * Evidence

After discussing this talk page issue with Til for a couple of weeks now I've grown accustomed to Til's writing style, and these two accounts seem eerily similar. The difference in the two replies makes me think one person wrote the first reply (guided by Til), then Til wrote the second reply himself in a bit of a hurry.

Not that clear cut - could be a matter for WP:RFCU. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I agree that the account seems like a 'single-purpose account' with only two edits to the same page, and that whoever it is, does seem to be in general agreement with my same position; but it's not my sockpuppet, and I honestly have no idea who it is, other than someone expressing an opinion - nor have I had any kind of intercommunication with that editor. I never use sockpuppets, or break any rules.  I'm certain checkuser would verify that he or she, is not I.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can give categorical assurances that I am not a sockpuppet. I am, however, new to WP editing. My apparent 'familiarity' with the terminology is only a result of having read through the discussion page - after all, I did not want to make any contribution without having first availed myself of the facts of the dispute. Ben may be surprised to learn that when I first read the discussion, I was actually about to make a comment in favour of his position. It was only after re-reading the arguments that I decided my first impulse was in error. I am in general agreement with Til only in the point that use of the word 'mythology' may be considered offensive to the many people who genuinely believe that the story of Noah's Ark has at least some basis in reality. Further to this, I felt that Ben was being unreasonable in insisting on pushing for the inclusion of that word and it seemed that Til was isolated. Hence, I felt the need to say what I did. Regarding the apparently 'altered' style of my second comment. I can only say that my contributions are currently restricted to the times when I am at work and that second comment was placed shortly before finishing for the day and thus was, of necessity, brief.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I should add that I am in the UK - my work times are 09:00 to 17:00 GMT. The time-stamp of my contributions matches the time here, but I am not certain that this time-stamp appears the same universally.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the same lines - I am off work now till Monday - I wouldn't want anybody to misread a four day silence as having any other cause!--FimusTauri (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks a little like a rather hasty and unjustified accusation to me, I have been involved with the editing of Noah's Ark and have seen no evidence of sock puppetry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree because Til does not seem the type of editor to engage in sockpuppetry over his various disputes and the evidence is flimsy at best. I certainly have concerns that our "don't bite the newbiews" policy has been violated with no serious evidence offered. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't decide to start this because I thought Til was the sort of person to do this or think it was unjustified with edits like these two, and time spent away from the computer, as FimusTauri seems to be making a deal out of above, didn't seem relevant since they were on at around the same time. I thought I clearly explained this in my first comment. FimusTauri continues to amaze with their ability to navigate policy pages so quickly, but if everyone else thinks its unlikely to be a sockpuppet, then I'm happy to drop it and then apologise to them both. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't much to go on here. No evidence of specific abuse. Just two editors who happen to agree with one another on a contentious religious topic. I suggest that this be closed unless something more specific turns up. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed with no action. Re-open if anything more specific turns up. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions