Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pongostick/Archive

HASH(0x2a97050)

User:Pongostick

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

Pongostick

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

Report date March 7 2009, 07:09 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Evidence submitted by User:Will Beback talk

Requested. Will Beback talk 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not for fishing. Do you have a potential sockmaster in mind, and if so then upon what evidence? Durova^Charge! 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among other edits, Pongostick restored an edit by Rumiton that had been reverted.[1][2] There were several reverts in the edit warring of the EPO links, in which a couple of editors were involved. Pongostick's behavior matches that of classic sockpuppets. See WP:SOCK: [Sock accounts] are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, ... They may edit on a selected article or a very narrow range of topics. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary. In the context of an RfAR started partly as a result of edit wars, it's fair to inquire if sock puppets have been active. Will Beback talk 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some evidence that the editor using Pongostick could be the same as Jossi, another editor active on the same article as recently as late December. If so, enough time may have passed for the editor to return with a new account without abusing a sock puppet privilege. If that's the case then the ArbCom should be informed but no affirmation or disclosure is required here. Will Beback talk 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2/Workshop#Checkuser_request as this is the more appropriate forum. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this account related to this? Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That account's only activity was to add a few citations to a bibliography in July 2008. Checkuser would not be able to determine a connection. However it's worth noting that of the four edits adding citations, Jossi had made edits regarding two of the sources. [3][4] and [5][6] Will Beback talk 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )

Current status –

Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Will Beback talk 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Recusing from SPI clerking to maintain separation of WP:ARB/CLERK and WP:SPI/CLERK positions. MBisanz ^talk 07:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see sufficient grounds for a check between Pongostick and Rumiton based on contributions... both have definite SPA tendencies. I am carrying out a preliminary investigation. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason A is used as the code letter? Exactly why does this fall under evasion of arbcom sanctions or restrictions? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a reason that this might be related to evasion of arbcom sanctions, see above, two reasons are given if you read closely. As to whether it actually is, or not? That's a matter for further investigation. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see it; thanks. Jayvdb had the same query yesterday so I decided to ask. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Unlikely that Pongostick and Rumiton are technically correlated. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

-Any further action needed here? Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the case is still being investigated. Will Beback talk 01:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I commented out the close template. Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can now be closed with no finding, per the checkuser who communicated to me by email. Will Beback talk 08:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]