Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/0scalefactor
- 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
0scalefactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Excel 2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Computational defunct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DtothH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.5.117.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Challenge198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--DarkTea© 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:0scalefactor is an account with only a couple of edits which made this reversion diff on 02:01 2 October 2007 to revert the racial classifications on the Dravidian people article and User:Excel2008, an account with only a couple of edits, has made the same reversion diff four hours and fifty minutes later on 06:51 2 October 2007 on the racial classification of the Dravidian people article. Another new user with only 1 edit, User:Computational defunct, made a similar edit regarding the race of Indians 3 minutes prior to 0scalefactor's on 02:04, 2 October. This user may also be a sockpuppet.---DarkTea© 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:82.5.117.20 made 3 reversions (1st, 2nd ,3rd) followed by User:DtothH, an obvious sockpuppet of the anonymous user, who made the 4th and 5th reversion on the Dravidian people article. DtothH appears to have arisen as a result of the 3RR warning I gave the anonymous editor, creating a new user account to escape the 3RR rule. This anonymous editor 82.5.117.20 and their sockpuppet User:DtothH have been pushing for the same point of the view on the Dravidian people article as the previously-listed 0scalefactor and Excel2008. I suspect they may all be sockpuppets of the same person. At the very least, User:DtothH is a sockpuppet of User:82.5.117.20.----DarkTea© 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Challenge198 appears to be a sockpuppet of at least one of the previously mentioned group who has manifested to edit the Caucasian article with the intent of showing Indians to be all Caucasian on this edit. All the previous editors have mainfested themselves with the intent of showing that all Indians are Caucasians, so they are all editing the same type of articles with the same point of view. They all manifest themselves with no other edits just to push this point of view.----DarkTea© 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- see [1], its hard to call βcommand 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already looked at their contributions. That is not news to me. Can you trace their IP?----DarkTea© 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not a checkuser, I created that to help others look into their contribs. βcommand 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very suspicious. You don't just happen to have two accounts show up within a day of each other to make controversial edits to an article about race in India, and not take interest in anything else. I'm not sure about Computational Defunct, who has made only one edit, to a different article than the other two accounts. However, I'm pretty confident that 0scalefactor and Excel 2008 are tag-teaming. A checkuser would be wise before executing any remedial action. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Shalom here; some of the activity looks suspicious, but I'm not sure that all of these accounts are connected. I would point out, though, that activity from the named accounts is several weeks old at this point, and if there's not a current problem, there's not much point in blocking any accounts. A checkuser request might be helpful in sorting out what's going on, if there is current disruptive activity. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I'm closing this case. My conclusions are that all of the accounts have engaged in editing which is prohibited by policy; but considering that none of them (save the IP address) have edited recently, there is no need to block anyone over this. Please keep an eye on these accounts, however. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]