Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.
I have closed the discussion (not sure if this is the usual way, but it will do). There is no case for sockpuppetry here: no evidence. I recommend that everyone just moves on - work on the encyclopedia instead.--Commander Keane 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting here in case it matters that a user check was requested and it confirmed that User:Gomi-no-sensei and User:Anomicene appeared to be operated by the same person. The former has been blocked indefinitely, because Anomicene was created first. The same person also created User:IronDuck, an apparent attack account on User:IronDuke. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact correction: User logs show that User:Gomi-no-sensei created his account on (1/30/06), before I (User:Anomicene) created mine (2/4/06). -- Anomicene 07:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gomi-no-sensei was first used on May 1, 2006, while Anomicene was first used on February 4, 2006. If Gomi was set up in January but not used until May, it's what we call a sleeper account, which also suggests it's a sockpuppet account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting here for the record that Anomicene was today confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Gnetwerker. See here and here for the evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gomi-no-sensei

I did not place this notice here. I was waiting to get some kind of reaction from User:Gomi-no-sensei before proceeding, but this user has decided to post this here right away (and insult me at the same time, just for fun). IronDuke 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an evidence page for discussion of the potential sockpuppetry of User:Gomi-no-sensei. The first edit of his so-far brief career was to create a user page for me. [[1]] (note, this diff doesn't show that my page was (deliberately) blank before). Now, I haven't been editing a tremendously long time, but I do have hundreds of edits under my belt, so it's clear I'm not a newbie who doesn't understand how to make a user page. Also, as the edit in question was a relatively sophisticated one [[2]], and it was his first, there is little doubt that this is a sock. I asked him on his talk page why he did this, got no response other than removing my comment. Restored my comment, asked again, and the material was again deleted, this time by another user. I have no diffs for this because all traces of my communication have been wiped out and entirely erased. On its own, this would be 1000% unacceptable. But gomi-no-sensei has since done this to another user [[3]].

I guess, due to the disappearance of my comments in the history that this user is associated with or is himself an administrator. If so, it's pretty shocking. IronDuke 17:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:IronDuke presents no actual evidence of me being a sock-puppet -- in particular, the accusation must include who he thinks I am a sock-puppet of. He thinks I am an admin because I'm more adept at Wiki than he, but that's it. I would outline here how I removed his vandalism from my Talk page, but that would be WP:BEANS. This accusation is unfounded, ill-formed, and I have removed the notices from my user and talk pages. I should add that nothing I have done is improper, unless not wanting to see IronDuke's sig in ugly red counts. -- Gomi-no-sensei 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed more adept at Wiki than I. I see now how you caused my comments to be deleted. I don't know whether it's a systemic WP flaw that allows you to do that or somebody just wasn't paying attention, but it is highly improper of you to do that nonetheless. But more importantly, you may not remove the tags for seven days. Being as adept at WP as you are, this should not be news to you. IronDuke 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You accusation is not properly formed. Not only are the templates not filled-in, but your evidence fails to meet this test: [The evidence] must include not only evidence that that the account is an alternate account, but also the instances where the account has been used in a forbidden manner. None of this has been done. -- Gomi-no-sensei 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure it has. Look again. IronDuke 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, what other account do you think I am, and in what way have I edited in "a forbidden manner"? Archiving of your vandalism (or more or less any other edit on my personal and talk pages) is not forbidden. Your link 1 and link 2 are not the same incident, annoying to you (it appears) but not forbidden, and certainly innocuous, and link 3 is to a note on my user page from an anonymous user accusing me of something not in evidence. There is nothing there! -- Gomi-no-sensei 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could be the other editor who removed my comments. Not saying that's the case, just the most likely prospect. But since you erased that edit (rather adeptly, if I may use that word), I don't know who that editor was and can't find out. You most certainly did not "archive" them, and the way you deleted them is quite, quite forbidden. And in what universe, precisely, is my posting an objection to your mucking about with my user page (which, ironically, you chastise another user for doing to your own user page) considered vandalism. I await your citation of the relevant policy. But getting down to brass tacks: you know you're a sockpuppet. You can try to wriggle around and wikilawyer policy at me, but it won't work for long. We can take this to an administrator and start unraveling what's going on, if you like. Or you can just tell me what it is you think you're doing. Oh, and while we're at it, why don't I just ask you directly, so you can go on the record: are you a sockpuppet? IronDuke 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Since you were not able to properly form the evidence page or notices, I have done so for you (since you would have reverted all day and night otherwise). And that is the end of my participation in this charade. -- Gomi-no-sensei 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, you are welcome to stop responding, that is your right (although it seems to me you've already made one edit since your putative cessation of participation in this charade). In any case, I ask any admins who are reading this to please look in the deleted log and see, if possible, who it was that removed my comments from gomi-no-sensei's talk page. I'm kicking myself for not noting it at the time... IronDuke 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While there does seem to be evidence that Gomi-no-sensei made some rather inappropriate edits, especially the abuse of speedy to remove comments from the history, I see no evidence that he/she is a sock puppet. Experience with editing is not a particularly good indicator on its own, and I don't see any reason why this account would be a puppet or who it would be - Gnetwerker removed the speedy request, but appears to do so semi-regularly. This probably isn't the right place to discuss this. --Philosophus ^T 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any hard evidence (which could only really come from checkuser, right?). But since his very first edit was to create a userpage for me, with hidden text, I have to say I find the odds that this editor is legit pretty long. I mean, that's pretty strange, right? I hope I'm not being paranoid. And then he uses a pretty sophisticated maneuver to get my talk deleted from his page. Smells like a sock to me (sorry for the pun). Oh... and where would you advise this discussion take place? IronDuke 13:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)