Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FluffyPug

FluffyPug

FluffyPug (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FluffyPug/Archive.

26 March 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 67.139.40.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 98.237.163.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Similar IP edits [1] and [2] that is aimed at restoring FluffyPug's initial edit [3], all constantly repeated.

Here a recent edit summary, suggesting the user's trying to avoid scrutiny [4]. Note that the user only began using the account again after the article was semi-protected.

The person is set on giving the same uncited information since December [5], disruptively using multiple accounts. Cold Season (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• CheckUsers can't usually reveal direct connections between IPs and accounts, nor inter-IP relationships.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, I had edited it out before your comment. --Cold Season (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to make this point clear- this page is here at the point in time as an attempt by the above user to gain traction in an edit war, a war that spans across multiple instances of anon IP usage, all directly related to whether or not toilets made of porcelain exist (they do).[6] Furthermore, the accusation has been made that I have been acting merely "to disrupt"- this is entirely untrue. I have previously attempted to halt the edit war and discuss the matter with prior editors [7], because my goal is to make the article more informative.

So... to start at the beginning- the porcelain article originally had a mention that toilets were frequently made of porcelain. An Anon IP didn't like that at all and began a long-standing campaign to stamp out that mention, as you'll notice with this edit [8] he first begins to claim that "toilets are not made of porcelain", then when provided with evidence that indeed many were [9], he simply abandoned his previous attempts at civility and simply started calling the image's usage on the page "vandalism" [10]. The very next edit used the exact same debunked edit summary the original removing IP had used, but with a different IP [11], an IP with only two edits in his/her entire history, after which point that IP vanished and TheRoadIsLong appeared with a new claim- that toilets are "high fired earthenware", despite the fact that previously a completely referenced link had been given that demonstrated, just as Wikipedia insists on requiring, that indeed many toilets are indeed porcelain. At this point the image was replaced by one that could not be argued with not porcelain- the image of chamber pots. At which point mysteriously Cold Season pops in and begins reverting the image using the same vague, nondescriptive editing terms (like "hmm, doubtful"), and continued to remove the image over and over again [12] until the page was autoprotected.

What you see here is a long standing attempt by a user (or a small number of users across IPs) to entirely remove the mention of porcelain in personal Hygiene from the article at all. If I hadn't been checking edit summaries, I never would have even known that this particular page had been created; I'm glad that I discovered it.

As it stands right now the image itself, at least from my last edit, is no longer at the top of the page. I have created a small segment in the "Other Uses" section down near the bottom of the page. The image no longer mentions France (I think that was someone's sticking point?), the text has at least five specific notable references and also includes in the section information about the other main use of porcelain in personal hygiene, which is the porcelain-coated bathtub.

Interested parties can take from that what they will. FluffyPug (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The article history clearly showed that you (FluffyPug) edited the article to include whatever, it also clearly show that there was a switch to IP adresses who subsequently kept making the same edit while disregarding the issues raised for a period (thus disruption, because assuming good faith is not being naive), it then showed that you (FluffyPug) came back only after semi-protection (which I requested, since the IP was disruptive, rather than engaging to me) to make the same edit. Whatever the merit or not of the edit, this is a WP:DUCK from you. You choose to use IP adresses to reinstate your edits outside your account, rather then address the problem directly (which you finally did after 3 months by providing sources, but you still socked). --Cold Season (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"To include whatever" nothing- I provided specific links as to edits I created -all of which were nondisruptive- and all of which simply were of the nature of working with other users to try to come to a consensus as to the inclusion of porcelain's role in personal hygiene. Your assertion that my posts were all of "the same edit" has clearly been disproven. On top of that, your consistent refusal to assume good faith, discuss with other editors your edits, rationalize your removal of sourced article information- all of these things are in addition to the fact that you have neglected to mention the other "mysterious IPs" that have few to no article edits prior and served only to revert the page back to "your" version. If you want to talk about a "duck", I would advise you to look in the mirror. Perhaps that's why you created this page in the first place- the very IPs that continually reverted the page back to "your" version of events might be subsequently traced back to you, especially given that your entire rationale on the Porcelain article is the wanton and blatant removal of any information about Porcelain's role in toilets. You know what they say about stones and glass houses? FluffyPug (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---