Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] User:Shuppiluliuma

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CalicoJackRackham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DragutBarbarossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Hiberniantears 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • This is a very clear admission by the user: [2]
  • My only interaction with either user comes in the form of an edit war between myself and user:Flavius Belisarius in which the user employed anonymous IP's to revert edits, and eventually listed several user names (listed above) with which he also may be identified.
  • I see that Calico Jack and Dragut have both also been indefinetly banned.
Comments

Might I ask if anything further is to be done about this? Hiberniantears 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

No need for further investigation, the identity is obvious. Just for background: Shuppiluliuma was banned (officially community-banned, if I remember correctly) for some episodes of aggressive edit-warring, but mainly for making large numbers of image uploads with seemingly problematic copyrights. After the ban and some pretty terrible sockpuppetry he approached me in private with a seemingly more constructive attitude, and demonstrated that many of the photographs were okay in terms of copyright after all. So, since the photographs were actually of high quality and he seemed to be making edits on Istanbul and related articles that some fellow editors felt were valuable, I silently let him continue to edit under his new account, hoping he would settle down and behave okay. He's generally a competent and well-informed contributor, but of a rather volatile temper though, it seems. So, upshot is, I'll have to bear the responsibility for having let this situation develop. Not sure yet about how best to proceed from here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's him, but since he seems to be editing constructively I'm inclined to do nothing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Really!? I can understand if we don't ban him again. But this guy is at best off his meds 50% of the time. The rest of the time he does, in fact, create solid content. But, even Hitler built the Autobahn. (and no, citing the Nazi's does not sacrifice the high ground. This guy is, in the truest sense, a Nationalist). I'm pretty much only pissed off about the anti-Irish, anti-American, SuperTurk Hyperbole. The obstinate sense of ownership is annoying, but I can work with it, since this idiot lacks consensus. More to the point, he has been indefinitely banned multiple times. I point this out, and two admins think nothing should be done... Yes, I agree that he has been making good edits, but he has also made racist, hostile edits. He needs to at least be monitored. As I noted on Ak's page, banning him will not work, because this strategy is obviously a COMPLETE JOKE. Regardless, he needs to be watched. I am an editor, not an admin. You are the ones who need to step up to the plate here. Just give me a sign that you are paying attention. Thanks. Hiberniantears 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)