Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zero g

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:Zero g

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zero g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nyuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rubidium37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.236.211.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My initial involvement with this case was in reverting this edit by Nyuba, along with this edit by an anon IP. Shortly after doing so my revert was in turn reverted by Nyuba, restoring both removed sections. (A fact I failed to notice initially) This quickly devolved into a slow-speed edit war, notably with Nyuba continuing to re-add and defend the inclusion of both sections of removed text, which I believe directly ties Nyuba to this anon IP. (Though to be fair this specific instance could easily just be a matter of "oops I forgot to log in") What is most interesting about Nyuba's behavior, however, is his apparent familiarity with the use of <ref> tags and Wikipedia policy, despite the entirety of his edits consisting of the initial addition of statistics just a few weeks ago, followed by the defense of their inclusion; a single-purpose account, it would seem.

However, the possibility of sockpuppetry only really came to my attention when earlier today my latest removal of the information was undone by Zero g, who has never edited this article before and curiously used the same reasoning ("don't remove sourced content") that has been the lynchpin of Nyuba's arguments. Examining Zero g's contributions revealed an interest in similar topics (such as Race and intelligence and Race, Evolution, and Behavior), often defending the inclusion of similar statistics.

Curiously, some of the articles Zero g has edited also seem to be affected by a near-single-purpose account with behavior similar to Nyuba's and a focus or stance similar to Zero g's; Rubidium37 has made edits solely to Race and intelligence and Dysgenics (biology), using the same "it's sourced so it's in" argument and also promoting a very similar stance to that of Zero g.

Finally, note that there is no direct overlap in edit times between the three users in question.

Comments

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zero g. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added User:Jagz to the list, as the behaviour is the same as described above for the rest of the group. Revert if addition is inappropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the addition of my username as it is a breach of protocol by User:Ramdrake and the primary motive may be a POV vendetta. My username was added to the list by Ramdrake after the report submission by Y|yukichigai.[1] I request that appropriate punitive action be taken against Ramdrake. --Jagz (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "POV vendetta"; rather, User:Jagz has been acting in concert with Rubidium37 and Zero g on a number of articles (mentioned above) and within the same timeframe. If the RFCU has merits, it just stands to reason that this user should be included too. If any protocol has been breached, I will be grateful to whomever can point me to the relevant policy to show me the breach.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind the regulars that there is no punitive action in wikipedia! 72.221.65.80 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Thatcher closed the checkuser case. The accounts are unrelated. Note that Ramdrake followed the rules with regard to adding Jagz to the checkuser request. We weren't sure, so we asked someone to check. Now we know Jagz is someone else. Let's all calm down and move on. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]