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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

CoreEpic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cicatriz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

167.230.38.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

24.164.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John Sloan (view / chat) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After failing to reach a talk page consensus that was in his favour about whether or not some information should be included in Family Foundation School. CoreEpic was all of a sudden backed up (on the talk page) by User:Cicatriz1 tonight at 20:14. Now, that account that was only created at 20:03 tonight. I strongly suspect that CoreEpic has resorted to sock puppetry in an attempt to get his controversial information into the article. For more evidence and information about the conflict, please see Talk:Family Foundation School.

Note - He has also been known to edit using one of his IP's. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sorry to break it to you but I am neither Cicatriz1 nor 24.164.167.172, 167.230.38.115 is the computer I log in from and I was logged out by accident prior to making a post. CoreEpic (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

and 24.164.....yada yada is mineDJJONE5NY (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

In the past, Njkidust09 (talk • contribs) was created at [1], and posted only once, to this article [2]. All this leads to my thought that these are mostly (except for the logged in/logged out thing, which the editors need to avoid strenuously) to-me-legitimate "meat puppets". CAFETY appears to state that it *strongly* objects to FFS in a formal way. Dedicated members would most certainly reach out to one another for support in pursuing their important agendas.sinneed (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As would any members or employess of FFS do in order to further their own agenda. Without proof of someone's identity you can't say that many of the positive edits are not from FFS staff, other than to take their word for it. (not meaning sinneed here who has been somewhat rational as of late at least). Wikiwag only "affirms" they are not employed but will give no other information due to privacy. While this is fine in respects to privacy, it does not prove that he/she is not an employee of the school, just as just because CAFETY is oppposed to FFS does not mean all those who post against FFS are members of CAFETY. CAFETY is much broader in scope than FFS. It is not merely a "hate site" as you put it. Clearly there was a reason two of its founding members were asked to testify in Congress. While its members may hate abuses suffered at programs, there is no "hate" spewed about anyone other than those who have abused them.DJJONE5NY (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)djjone5[reply]

Conclusions

• One edit for the sock account isn't enough to go on. It's possible that it's a meat puppet but, until more edits are made, little can be done. As for the IPs, their edits are easily stifled if they continue to lay down hassle. Please contact me if any more suspicious edits are made. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]