Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FluffyPug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FluffyPug (talk | contribs) at 10:08, 27 March 2014 (formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

FluffyPug

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


26 March 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I know, I had edited it out before your comment. --Cold Season (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a morning! I open up my edit history and find this, completely unbeknownst to me. Would have been nice to know this individual was attempting this. As a matter of fact, this is actually a vindictive attempt by this particular user to bar me from providing anything "toilet related" to the wikipedia article about porcelain. I will also note that this specific individual, despite his shouts of "sockpuppetry", appears to be using multiple IPs.
You see, a long time ago you'll note that the porcelain article had a mention that toilets were frequently made of porcelain. This fellow didn't like that at all and began a long-standing campaign to stamp out that mention, as you'll notice with this edit [6] he first begins to claim that "toilets are not made of porcelain", then when provided with evidence that indeed many were [7], he simply abandoned his previous attempts at civility and simply started calling the image's usage on the page "vandalism" [8]. The very next edit used the exact same debunked edit summary the original removing IP had used, but with a different IP [9], 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 [10] 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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments