Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Py0alb/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

• Py0alb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Comments at WP:HD indicate that the user is disputing their block, but has a clean block log; apparent block evasion. Apologies if this is the wrong venue since it's more block evasion rather than sockpuppetry, since the user seems to have made it clear they have another account (though doesn't appear willing to identify the account). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This may be a simple mis-understanding caused by wiki-jargon – please see this comment from me at the helpdesk. That said, I understand there may be reasons behind Py0alb's reluctance to state what article he's referring to. I don't see any reason for a checkuser or whatever if s/he only edits at the helpdesk, though. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-announced edit conflict in the above post... I can't stand this new "smart" edit-conflict avoidance system.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a block, nor am I disputing a block. What I meant in the comment he is referring to was I was unable to re-edit a page because I am voluntarily obeying the three revert rule.

Neither do I have another account. Before opening this account a few days ago I edited wikipedia simply under my home IP address. I haven't doubled up accounts at any point, or pretended to be different people (is that what sock puppetry is?).

In fact, this case is completely spurious, and tiger (sp) knows this. In fact this is simply a personal attack on me because we disagreed on a previous topic. As such, I think that his behaviour should be investigated. What is wikipedia's policy on unprovoked personal attacks? Py0alb (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks is here. WP:ANI is the correct venue if you believe I have violated that policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, and I will be taking this further. In fact, your repeated assertion that I have a separate account despite me saying on several occasions that I do not is further evidence of this. I think you owe me an apology as an absolute minimum. Are you going to come and apologise on the help desk or would you rather put it on my help page?

I welcome a check user or whatever its called. I have no idea how they work, but you will presumably see that I'm not lying when I say I have no other account Py0alb (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did you say you have no other account? You said you've been receiving warnings and at one point said you'd been blocked; your account has had no warnings (except recent ones about NPA) and and no blocks; there is no other conclusion I can draw from that. Make sure you notify me on my talk page once you have filed an WP:ANI thread if you intend to file one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian has pointed out that I may have misinterpreted your comment about being blocked on HD, but at the worst that's a simple error in interpreting a poorly-phrased statement (re-reading it, the way it is phrased makes me unsure whether Adrian is correct that I misinterpreted it or not, and I haven't yet seen any further clarification of what you meant, your only response was "I'm not blocked you idiot" when someone else asked you). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At 15:29, 11 January 2011 you said: "When did you say you have no other account?" Please see my comment at 14:53, 11 January 2011, in which I said: "Neither do I have another account."

You also said: "I haven't yet seen any further clarification of what you meant" Please see my comment at 14:53, 11 January 2011, in which I said: "I don't have a block, nor am I disputing a block. What I meant in the comment he is referring to was I was unable to re-edit a page because I am voluntarily obeying the three revert rule"

You need to read people's comments more carefully before making unwarranted accusations Giftiger. I await my apology with anticipation. Py0alb (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed 'case' is dead in the water, seeing as there was never even the remotest shred of evidence in the first place. If anything, it appears to be a rather bizarre (and unsuccessful) attempt to intimidate me. Since I haven't broken a single rule, I have no idea what I have done to offend Giftiger on a personal level and receive this extremely unfriendly and personally offensive 'welcome' to wikipedia. Py0alb (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So just for clarification, are you asking us to run a checkuser to find out who it is? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I thought their comments stating they'd been blocked but with a clear block log indicated block evasion sufficiently to justify a block of User:Py0alb. Having read Adrian's comment though, it's possible I may have incorrectly interpreted what the user meant by being "blocked". The use of a different account, the unwillingness to reveal the other account, etc. does suggest that the user is attempting to avoid scrutiny however, which is specifically disallowed in WP:SOCK. So yes, I think a checkuser may be called for. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Checkuser is not for fishing. So unless you have an idea who we can compare this editor to, I can't really justify running a CU. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CHECKUSER#"Fishing" states that it's not fishing to request a checkuser without knowing the sockmaster, as long as there's sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. If you don't feel the evidence is sufficient to warrant a CU then fair enough though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems the dispute occurred while the user was using their IP address; there doesn't seem to be an overlap in the two in terms of edits so despite being deliberately vague with the incident when discussing it on WP:HD, this probably isn't a sockpuppetry concern. Feel free to close the case now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing per nominator's request. Nakon 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]