Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva
- 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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Apteva (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Delphi234 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Oakwillow (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 199.125.109.100 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Delphi234 signing comments by 199.125.109.95 [1]
- Apteva signing comments by 199.125.109.87 [2]
- Apteva is a tendentious editor who has refused to follow the consensus first established through an RFC and repeatedly affirmed. Traditionally he's used the dynamic IPs 199.125.109.xxx, then Apteva and more recently he's used Delphi234 to prolong his argument.
- See the Disruption section of Oakwillow's talk page for the evidence of 199.125.109.xxx use of an additional identity.
- Mrshaba removing diagram [3]
- 199.125.109.10 reinserting diagram [4]
- Mrshaba removing diagram [5]
- 199.125.109.27 reinserting diagram [6]
- Mrshaba removing diagram [7]
- 199.125.109.43 reinserting diagram [8]
- Mrshaba removing diagram [9]
- 199.125.109.129 reinserting [10]
- Mrshaba removing diagram [11]
- 199.125.109.104 reinserting image [12]
- Geometry guy removing diagram [13]
- Apteva reinserting diagram [14]
- Judith removing diagram [15]
- Delphi reinserting diagram [16]
- Judith removing diagram [17]
- Delphi reinserting diagram [18]
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
99% of my edits are as an IP editor, by preference (my first edit was with a registered user name because I thought that was what you were supposed to do - but when I found out otherwise, and couldn't remember the chosen name or password I decided it would be much simpler to just stick with not using any account). I have only created an account to upload images and to edit maliciously semi-protected pages, and minor other purposes. Multiple accounts for separate purposes is not a violation of policy. I am very careful to not use any account inappropriately. The same can not be said for the WP:SPA Mrshaba, who recently engaged in canvassing to bolter support for his edit of his page. I refuse to confirm or deny that any of the above accounts are by the same user, as that would violate the principle of anonymity. Forgetting to log in does not constitute sockpuppetry. This report, is not only frivolous, but also malicious in intent. Apteva (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Agree that something is going on and I notice that there is no overlap in contributions. Accounts are only active during gaps in the other two accounts. But there is not enough evidence for me to take action. Strongly recommend taking to WP:RFCU, and make sure to include how you think Oakwillow is related (there is no mention of that account here). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll save you the trouble. There is nothing wrong with creating separate accounts for a variety of reasons detailed at WP:SOCK. "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively." I would never do that. I also would never confirm or deny whether any of the above accounts were created by the same person, for reasons of anonymity, which, by the way is not the same as deception. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by "save you the trouble". If you're saying that there is no deception, I'm not sure I agree. Mrshaba has laid out a pretty convincing case for someone intentionally using multiple accounts to give the appearance of consensus, etc. I'm willing to forgive someone who quietly retired an account months ago and used a new one exclusively thereafter - but these accounts are turning off and on too frequently for comfort. All three have operated within the last few weeks - and that doesn't count the IP edits. If a checkuser confirmed a connection, I would recommend some blocks. But don't worry, I would leave the actual blocking to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Mrshaba's sole intent is to get me blocked and is not looking for actual reasons, only apparent reasons. For example, forgetting to log in is listed several times in his list of "evidence". 99% of my edits are as an IP editor. I am always careful to never vote twice in anything or use multiple accounts to participate in an edit war. If it looks like I have it is only because of forgetting to log in. Hey, worrying is the last of my worries. I've participated in enough RM's and other discussions to know that it really doesn't matter what the result of any discussion is, it can always be fixed later if needed. That's one of the beauties of WP - everything is saved forever. You really need to understand that Mrshaba's intent is solely malicious, though, and not intended for the benefit of WP. Apteva (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't have a problem tagging all of those accounts as alternate accounts then, right?--Tznkai (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect other accounts besides those listed above and I'd like to see how wide this goes. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, electric cars, World energy resources have all suffered. I think these accounts go back to a previous account that was blocked over a year ago. This fellow has done a lot of damage and hardly any content creation. In the words of another editor that dealt with Apteva: "My experience was that this person used a number of IPs to edit the domain of articles in a manner that... well I don't know if there was ever any content creation. Eh, it's the way things go. Clearly the user knows what they're doing, I think there's maybe there's an idea that spotty IPs give more impunity than established user names. Sorry I can't really help you much." Mrshaba (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Tznkai was asking Apteva that question - just in case that wasn't clear... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect other accounts besides those listed above and I'd like to see how wide this goes. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, electric cars, World energy resources have all suffered. I think these accounts go back to a previous account that was blocked over a year ago. This fellow has done a lot of damage and hardly any content creation. In the words of another editor that dealt with Apteva: "My experience was that this person used a number of IPs to edit the domain of articles in a manner that... well I don't know if there was ever any content creation. Eh, it's the way things go. Clearly the user knows what they're doing, I think there's maybe there's an idea that spotty IPs give more impunity than established user names. Sorry I can't really help you much." Mrshaba (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't have a problem tagging all of those accounts as alternate accounts then, right?--Tznkai (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Mrshaba's sole intent is to get me blocked and is not looking for actual reasons, only apparent reasons. For example, forgetting to log in is listed several times in his list of "evidence". 99% of my edits are as an IP editor. I am always careful to never vote twice in anything or use multiple accounts to participate in an edit war. If it looks like I have it is only because of forgetting to log in. Hey, worrying is the last of my worries. I've participated in enough RM's and other discussions to know that it really doesn't matter what the result of any discussion is, it can always be fixed later if needed. That's one of the beauties of WP - everything is saved forever. You really need to understand that Mrshaba's intent is solely malicious, though, and not intended for the benefit of WP. Apteva (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by "save you the trouble". If you're saying that there is no deception, I'm not sure I agree. Mrshaba has laid out a pretty convincing case for someone intentionally using multiple accounts to give the appearance of consensus, etc. I'm willing to forgive someone who quietly retired an account months ago and used a new one exclusively thereafter - but these accounts are turning off and on too frequently for comfort. All three have operated within the last few weeks - and that doesn't count the IP edits. If a checkuser confirmed a connection, I would recommend some blocks. But don't worry, I would leave the actual blocking to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the guidelines it says that tagging alternative accounts is encouraged but not required, and goes on to detail reasons for each. My position at the moment is that for reasons of anonymity I prefer to neither confirm not deny whether any or all are alternate accounts, and strongly welcome suggestions as to whether any accounts have been used inappropriately. Also it is my understanding that the public outing of an editor is a cardinal sin, and whether done externally or internally has lead to at least one valued editor needing to leave WP because that occurred. Apteva (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva--Tznkai (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Letting the people over at CU sort this one out. Ongoing discussion over there. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]