Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

• 190.235.46.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Both the master and the IP are edit-warring replacing the word "humankind" with "mankind". Both the master and the IP "compromised" by using the word "humanity". I know CU does not connect IPs to named users so I am invoking fowl play. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP just admitted the fact

• on Talk:Bahá'í Faith

Report at 3RRN

• Even with the SPI open and despite multiple 3RR warnings from multiple users Edgth continued edit-warring and exceeded 3RR on Bahá'í Faith. Subsequently a report was filed at 3RRN: [1]

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

• Since I just ´admitted´ it, why even file this? I explained myself on the talk page so this seems vindictive. Edgth (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I just watched this whole thing go down, and I don't think any action is necessary. Edgth is a new user, and is still becoming accustomed to our policies. As far as I can see they weren't trying to evade detection, and they haven't directly violated any policies (3RR was not breached, and they didn't use the IP and the username to edit the same articles). Judging by this the first IP edit was by accident, and they continued editing logged out in good faith so as to not make it seem like two users were supporting the edits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Update: It looks like since I made this comment they made a 4th revert at Bahai Faith, proving me wrong about them not directly violating policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to repeat the IP comments from the article talkpage: ...so I decided to stay logged out in subsequent editing so as not be accused of socking funnily enough. They admit staying logged-out to avoid detection while edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That´s a funny interpretation of what I said. Edgth (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcastic replies to my advice at the article talkpage and your personal attacks along with your edit-warring speak for themselves. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I´m sorry if your twisted interpretation of my comment screamed BULLSHIT so much that I couldn´t help but tell that to you. Edgth (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny how you chose to edit-war on Mythology as an IP and subsequently you even removed my discussion from the talkpage so as not to attract attention to the fact that you were edit-warring thus keeping your alter ego Edgth free to edit-war on Bahá'í Faith unconnected to any edit-war on Mythology. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also "saw" the Bahai Faith side of this "go down". I do not agree that this is an innocent un-knowing new editor. There has been deception as a User (#'s of accts.) and deception w/ misleading edit summaries (claiming consensus falsely).```Buster Seven Talk 12:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Here in his 7th edit, his first edit on a talkpage anywhere on Wikipedia, he is talking about "Common usage" invoking grok page statistics like a pro. This doesn't look like newbie behaviour to me. Perhaps CU can check for any connections to other accounts after all. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I broadly agree with Adjwilley, but as the master is now the subject of a short block for edit warring I feel this is going in another direction anyway. I have left a note on his talk page reminding him that he is to edit solely from one named account, and have placed an anon block on the IP address to enforce this. Closing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]