Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Its Pytch.. Hon

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.

User:Its Pytch.. Hon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Its Pytch.. Hon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted as such here. Very similar editing patterns, edit summaries, and each one created virtually identical pages in different editor's userspace - here and here (which I've deleted since it was in my userspace). Both intent on recreating previously deleted material as witnessed here and here. The last one is worrying, potentially exposing a large number of accounts with similar editing styles... such as those now listed above...

User:Webb Traverse has now created this page which is remarkably similar to the two posted above...The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by another of the socks, User:Lew Basnight IV. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think you are on to something. Can you get this sock puppetry confirmed by a Checkuser, and then block all but the main account? The Checkuser may be able to identify additional accounts not listed here. I have not checked yet, but has this user has been warned not to recreate deleted, non-notable articles, and not to edit with multiple accounts for the purpose of disruption or evading scrutiny? If so, and he has continued to do so, I think a community ban would be appropriate. If he hasn't been properly warned yet, he needs to be told that a ban is the likely outcome if he persists in this disruptive behavior. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may be a logistical challenge to notify all the accounts. If Checkuser shows them to be the same person, I think that if any one account has been notified previously, or now, that is fair. If the user has created a confusing situation for himself because he's operating so many accounts, in fairness, I think that's his problem, not ours. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good advice. I've told a number of the puppets that recreating the deleted material is inappropriate, but just to be sure I've added a final warning on (what I'm assuming is) the current puppeteer's page to desist. We'll see what Alison comes up with and take appropriate action. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned every registered user on the list with {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=Its Pytch.. Hon}} ~~~~ - Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks like a major headache. The last ten or so accounts are linked by Rafael Trelles, Plasda, and a veiled threat against The Rambling Man ("We believe..." in the edit summary). It's hard to know what's the story with the older editors from February 2007 and even earlier. I don't think there's much to gain from blocking accounts that are already inactive for more than six months. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, as this has now moved into threats, etc, can you paste this over on WP:RFCU as a case and I'll see to it ASAP? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Alison is looking into this case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Its Pytch.. Hon. I'm closing this page for procedural reasons; any further discussion should be directed to the checkuser page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]