Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot
- 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.
User:Cplot
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cplot
- Report submission by
- Tbeatty 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- additional report by
- Jayron32 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- additional report by
- --tjstrf talk 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- additional reports by
- Morton devonshire 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- additional reports by
- StuffOfInterest 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- additional reports by
- Kchase T 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- additional reports by
- MER-C (as I come across them)
- additional reports by
- —Dgiest c 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
All of these IP's edit the same articles as "support" for CPlot after his block and all have edited "Federal Authorities are now blocking" sections in various articles. They are all Sprint IPs from the Chicago, Illinois area. They also attack MONGO (the blocking admin). Some of these have been blocked for trolling. --Tbeatty 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to better understand this situation. Can you please elaborate by specifically linking to the alleged attacks and what you consider to be "an attack"? Thank you. --CyclePat 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is User:Zoe warning not to make attacks. --Tbeatty 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see the link. Is there something I'm missing here. Please explain. All I see up above is a bunch of IP's that are mostly from the same area. (I think 1 or 2 are from different locations). Then I see the allegations that it is cplot that is running them all. What is the link? (I've studied for example John Rutter's Requiem and been able to make links with Benjamin Britten's thematic material. Usually it helps if I deconstruct the thematic material, place a small extract of that music and comparativelly analyse it with the primary subject) Given the circumstances of cplots 1 week block, and that this alleged sockpuppetteering could make that 1 week block be indefinate, I think it is very important to demonstrate the relationships. (not only that, but given the circumstances he was blocked under it is all the more important!). I vito the current block and ask the accuser to step up to the plate and explain yourself, otherwise I believe you are disrupting wikipedia and will not hesitate to do everthing possible to have this issue clarified higher up! --CyclePat 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence can be found here: [11]. Each one of the IP sockpuppets made an edit to [Wikipedia:Village pump (news)] within 1-2 minutes of their prior vandalism being removed. The edits were each substantilly the same in content and tone. Whether this is one person using some IP-drifting technique to avoid blocks, or is a series of friends each editing from a different location to do the same is moot. The entire enterprise needs to be stopped. I hope this helps. I could post the difs, but look at the list of edit summaries, and compare to Cplots edits, especially this one: [12]. Hope this clarifies the issue. This issue is being handled at multiple venues, including WP:ANI and WP:ABUSE --Jayron32 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see the link. Is there something I'm missing here. Please explain. All I see up above is a bunch of IP's that are mostly from the same area. (I think 1 or 2 are from different locations). Then I see the allegations that it is cplot that is running them all. What is the link? (I've studied for example John Rutter's Requiem and been able to make links with Benjamin Britten's thematic material. Usually it helps if I deconstruct the thematic material, place a small extract of that music and comparativelly analyse it with the primary subject) Given the circumstances of cplots 1 week block, and that this alleged sockpuppetteering could make that 1 week block be indefinate, I think it is very important to demonstrate the relationships. (not only that, but given the circumstances he was blocked under it is all the more important!). I vito the current block and ask the accuser to step up to the plate and explain yourself, otherwise I believe you are disrupting wikipedia and will not hesitate to do everthing possible to have this issue clarified higher up! --CyclePat 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did have a message on my user page that was a little suspicious. It could have been cplot but at the same time it indicated it was his friend. This was removed from my page by Zoe, I think because he believes its sock-puppet material. Seeing my off on use and, usually, my good faith and would not have said that was sock-puppet... but boy nose was in fact twitching thinking this could be my client (I am cplot's advocate). But why wouldn't he just email me! I dunno... these are all assumptions. And given the circumstances I would like to assume good faith more towards my client and that there is a smeer campaign based on some bad communications all based on the september 11, 2001 article dispute. --CyclePat 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is User:Zoe warning not to make attacks. --Tbeatty 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Please be warry of the block that was placed on cplot. My observations, after being asked to be his advocate, indicate that he was blocked in a revengeful maner and possibly in violation of WP:Block. (I am trying to hold a discussion at User:MONGO talk page, however I may be required to send this to the official WP:AMA board for further assistance and, as everyone seems to be suggesting mediation). All this to say, that cplot is blocked and there are some pretty suspicious things happening (even to the point where my user talk page has been vandalized to suppress a message in support of cplot.) Though this does not denny the fact that sockpuppets may exist, it does show the hostility was appears to have been escallated by a team of carefully crafted users "ganged-up!" Hence, I put you to the strictess of proof and that any allegations of vandalism be properly demonstrated. --CyclePat 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Block looks appropriate to me. I posted an invitation for evidence and volunteered to perform an independent investigation of the claims. The sockmaster and sockfarm continued posting unsupported allegations to Village Pump without ever taking evidence to my userpage or e-mailing me (unless the NSA, the space aliens, or Barney the Dinosaur ate the e-mail). DurovaCharge! 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The block was reviewed and supported at AN/I and a number of the sock puppets have been blcoked for simple disruption. --Tbeatty 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: USEBACA category is prevalent in a number of the sockpuppets. --Tbeatty 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Here it is done by Cplot. --Tbeatty 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added User:VIUlyanov as a suspected sockpuppet. Consider his comments here at ANI: [13]. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
My, I have never seen so many sock puppets in one accusation. It looks like all are being blocked already without waiting for this case to close, so might as well close the case. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]