Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Useruser1x

User:Useruser1x

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

J7t7c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
1WhoKnows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70slegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Littlebeaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Michaelbusch 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Useruser1x has been involved in an edit war on United Nation of Islam, repeatedly removing content over the objections of several editors (myself included), with no-one else stating support. Yesterday, to stop the warring, the page was put under full protection. However, Useruser1x put up the version he prefers just before the protection was activated. Given that Useruser1x was the only advocate of this version, I asked on Talk:United Nation of Islam if there was consensus for restoring the last-version-but-one while the page remained under protection. The four above accounts all had their first edits just after this, expressing support for Useruser1x, have made no other edits, and all edited the article within 1 hour of each other. This behavior strongly suggests a sockpuppet network.

In the interest of full disclosure: in a post to Talk:United Nation of Islam, Useruser1x denies that these accounts are sock puppets. Michaelbusch 18:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: one account and one IP also expressed support for reversion. I suspect that these are User:Masonuc - who has been repeatedly warned for insulting Useruser1x in this dispute. The account, User:NMinaf40120, may not have been intended as a sock - Masonuc had asked me for advice on changing usernames.

Comments

The following is a quote from Talk:United Nation of Islam and it is relevant to this issue at hand.Useruser1x 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, it is an extremely easy task for an admin to look up their ip addresses and prove that it is not me. For the record -- those parties who voted are NOT me. You are the one who started the poll not me. A poll means that a person has to make a CHOICE. Since it has not gone your way; now we have to be subjected to your opinions and assumptions about something that you started. Some of you have made assumptions about the admin who locked the board as though he was not intelligent enough to perform his job in a non-biased manner. If you didn't want people to choose, don't start a poll. It is that simple. And; for the record; I don't need anyone to be on "my" side. That is personal and has nothing to do with the idea at hand. The idea at hand is the non-truthfulness of your edits. And I am going to list them here again to address your latest version before I appeal to ArbCom. I have edited the article to remove POV or the appearance of POV from my edits but you cannot say the same of “your” version.Useruser1x 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Useruser1x 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User:Michaelbusch is the person in whom I differ; not Masonuc. It appears that Masonuc has deleted his account and he is no longer participating in our discussions. Michaelbusch is refusing all attempts at any form of resolution. Talk:United Nation of Islam This is yet another attempt from him to bully those who disagree with him. I did not agree with the purpose of his poll so I did not participate in it.Useruser1x 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it isn't such an easy task for an admin, because plain admins can't check IP addresses at all. That ability requires CheckUser privileges, and less than 20 people on the English Wikipedia have that. They also tend to be very overworked, as there are many requests, and they have to follow a strict privacy policy when checking IPs. In most cases, they prefer that such cases be decided without checking IPs when the matter is obvious. In this case, however, it isn't obvious that they are sockpuppets and not SPAs or meatpuppets, so it might be necessary to file an RFCU. Also, polls here are somewhat different than everywhere else; they're often called !votes because they're (in theory) less about the choices and more about the explanations for the choices people make. Also, I would be wary of appealing to ArbCom. A quote from Tolkien is relevant to this: "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophus (talk • contribs)

"A quote from Dresden is also relevant: Only a coward is wary when he has truth on his side". My father said it this way; "only the guilty run from justice because they know that they are wrong"--Useruser1x 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions