Login
Login

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nodekeeper

: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 {{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{{nosubst. 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:Nodekeeper===

;Suspected sockpuppeteer

{{user5|Nodekeeper}}

;Suspected sockpuppets

{{user5|Proabivouac}}

;Evidence

the user account (Proabivouac) may be new, but it is certainly not new to wikipedia. the first few edits point to previous experience on WP, although obviously not quite enough to know how to raise concerns about GAC in the right manner, which is notable as User:Nodekeeper too is still relatively new. his style of posting is reminiscent of Nodekeeper's entertaining voluminous blocks of discussion, per Talk:Muhammad. he is also noted as going to the talk pages of Aiden[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aiden&diff=prev&oldid=78074191] and Opiner[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Opiner&diff=prev&oldid=78074095], both of whom involved in the Muhammad article dispute (as was Nodekeeper), and indirectly requesting assistance of them for the article Muhammad as a diplomat. the new account knows pretty much what he is doing most of the time, and along with almost the exact same approach in style and psychology as User:Nodekeeper, it has led myself and other users to suspect that the link may be more than just common interests. it is also noteworthy that both users tend to accuse Muslim editors in general of inherently working against the rules of wikipedia. User:Nodekeeper has a long history of these kinds of accusations([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluerain&diff=prev&oldid=76735484], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76017511], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=75947168], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=76364308], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&curid=543919&diff=76799141&oldid=76798942], and more), and User:Proabivouac repeated such with his very first edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indon&diff=prev&oldid=78069578]. the reason why i believe that this is blameworthy sockpuppetry is that the sock is portraying themselves as an independant user, without seemingly any justifiable reason to be using a sock (seemingly a SPA) looking at his current contributions, when the account of the suspected sockpuppeteer is already in use. the user is definitely a sock as can be seen from their contribs, and i believe there is evidence to suggest it may be User:Nodekeeper. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

;Comments

Evidences that Proabivouac is a sockpuppet

I think Proabivouac is definitely a sockpuppet.

  • User's first edit is this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indon&diff=prev&oldid=78069578]. God knows how this new user is aware of someone's GA comments on an article?!
  • Proabivouac says: Your reliable sources argument is wikilawyering ... only in his 19th edit in wikipedia!!!
  • User is familiar with the terms POV, NPOV in his very first edits to wikipedia.

Evidences that the sockpuppeteer is Nodekeeper

  • Both Nodekeeper and Proabivouac are conspiracy theorising and accusing editors of maliciously trying to "supress" information:

: Nodekeeper: One example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluerain&diff=prev&oldid=76735484]

: Proabivouac: I am happy to bring several sources which attest to the exile and/or destruction of three of five Madinan tribes which has been very conspicuously omitted from this article...

  • User knows and has contacted user:Aiden and user:Opiner. These two editors have no common point except that they were both recently involved in the Muhammad article. Nodekeeper was the only other editor I know who had close relations with both these two editors.
  • There is a strong evidence to believe that both these two users live in the same time zone:

: Proabivouac's edits: from 9:04-10:53 and the next day starts at 20:17

: Nodekeeper's edits:

:: at 25 September 2006, we see the gap 10:22, 25 September 2006 - 21:38, 25 September 2006;

:: at 24 September 2006, we see the gap 10:21, 24 September 2006 - 23:39, 24 September 2006;

:: at 23 September 2006, we see the gap 10:44, 23 September 2006 - 02:06, 24 September 2006 (which is 23 September 2006 24:00 + 02:06)

:: at 21 September 2006, we see the two diffs at 06:45, 21 September 2006 which is less than 10:44, and also one at 22:01, 21 September 2006.

:These edits establish that Nodekeeper edits before time 10:22 (probably before the user sleeps) and then we see a gap and he starts again at around 21:38 or the very beginning hours of the next day.

: Report time 22:57, 27 September 2006 . The pattern obviously may change afterwards

  • Please note that the user Nodekeeper's last edit is on 00:53, 26 September and user:Proabivouac's account was created on 09:04, 27 September 2006. Report time 22:57, 27 September 2006

--Aminz 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper, nor do I operate in contravention of WP:SOCK. The preceding comments suggest that I have been dragged into an existing dispute between User:Itaqallah, User:Aminz and User:Nodekeeper which would be better addressed in another forum.Proabivouac 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

;Conclusions

Only insinuated. Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

----