Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/All in/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All in

23 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP user has been making contentious edits (complete with argumentative edit summaries) over the past couple of weeks on college football-related articles, especially articles relating to SEC schools. He obviously has been around before, because he links wikipolicies like nobody's business.

Today, I read through his wikilawyer-y arguments in a deletion discussion that he initiated a few days ago and finally recognized the style. I strongly suspect that is User:Latish redone, aka User:Rhinoselated and User:All in, who was banned for exactly the same kind of sockpuppet-enhanced semi-serious trolling in the same types of articles over a year ago.

Latish undone made some constructive edits at one time and actually started the list up for deletion. The anonymous IP user now demands its immediate removal because it was created by banned user. He's kept the discussion going with circular logic, quotes from irrelevant policy, and you-gotta-be-kidding-me arguments expressed in a falsely indignant tone, just like the suspected sockmaster used to do. My certainty neared 100% when I ran a WHOIS query that traced the IP back to Athens, Georgia, as Rhinoselated was all over Georgia Bulldog-related articles. It's very quack quack, imo.

I would bet the change currently in my pocket (43 cents) that this IP user is the same guy, back to have more fun at Wikipedia's expense. Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

  • Another example is this deletion discussion from 2010, in which his sock Rhinoselated used the same techniques to keep earnest editors arguing for days about a photo deletion that should have been quick and clear-cut. Again, he was just playing around with the process for his own amusement.
  • The user has a long history of IP sockpuppetry and spurious ANI reports. See this example: [1], and be sure to scroll up to the discussion right above to see even more.

It's pretty clear, imo. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Assuming that I am Latish/Rhinoselated or whatever other name(s) the vandal used, why would I nominate my own article for deletion? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To stir the pot and get reactions, as always. Wikipedia procedures were not set up to amuse you. Zeng8r (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that the article should be deleted for the reasons I described in the nomination. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that this IP user, while feigning ignorance about wikipolicies, filed a report at WP:ANI claiming that I'm persecuting him or some such. As mentioned, this attempt to portray himself as the persecuted one is another similarity to his (alleged) other socks. Zeng8r (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the details of the Latish/Rhinoselated cases but the block logs suggest reasons other than what Zeng8r is saying. The block reason given for Rhinoselated is "vandalism-only account" while the block reason given for Latish is sockpuppet of Rhinoselated. So while I am not familiar with whether Latish and Rhinoselated engaged in tendentious editing or whatever Zeng8r is saying, my knowledge based on the block logs is that Rhinoselated and Latish are accounts used by a vandal and that is why they were permanently blocked, not anything related to their editing style or whatever. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
It's hard to single out a single example. Just look down the list of edits for this IP user, Rhinoselated, and Latish redone and you'll find three lists of identical and closely related articles accompanied by long, argumentative, and faux-policy wikilawyering. It's hard to tell the difference. Zeng8r (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little digging for evidence; see above. --Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

CU request -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
13 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See [2]. Procedural filing. Rschen7754 09:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/All_in/Archive&oldid=1138666725"