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.

User:Piononno[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ReadyFreddie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.174.181.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.129.15.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Darkspots (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is Piononno's second time around, despite the lack of an ordinal number in the title of this page. The previous case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kaiser1877, decided that Piononno was the puppetmaster and User:Kaiser1877 should be indef blocked.

User:ReadyFreddie is a single-purpose account. The account's first edits were tests of vandalism templates, and all other edits have been made to Fräulein, its talk page, and various user and WP pages, all edits about this article. ReadyFreddie used relatively sophisticated WP tools like popups.

User:ReadyFreddie has made identical, unique edits to Fräulein as were made by User:Piononno. For example, ""little" can seem condescending to women past school age": RF: [1], PO: [2]

ReadyFreddie deleted all sources that contradicted his/her version of events: [3]. Piononno did this too [4], as well as corrupted the quotes from sources to make them agree with him/her: [5].

As in the first case, ReadyFreddie uses the same unusual style of putting two lines before a talk-page comment:[6]. Piononno doing the same: [7]. The other sock, Kaiser1877 doing the same: [8]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspots (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see User:ReadyFreddie indef blocked as a sockpuppet, and User:Piononno warned again. Even though this user appears most of the time to have a healthy disregard for the idea that WP is based on verifiable facts, he/she found a source once [9], and may be able to edit the encyclopedia constructively--but being limited to one account would be helpful. Darkspots (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReadyFreddie's Comments

Actually, the "little can seem condescending to women past school age" comment was inserted into the article for the first time on September 25, 2006 by User:SnowFire, a user whom User:Darkspots complemented at Fraulein's talk page. I am not a sockpuppet of any other user. I stumbled on the article by accident while searching the internet; I have edited Wikipedia before, but only under IPs. This is the first and only account that I have created. I certainly did not expect to be accused of vandalism because of my edits to that page. Thank you. ReadyFreddie (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever originally put it in the article, I found this a striking edit when I looked at the diff. Looks a lot like this. I suppose you didn't originally put the phrase in--I don't think it causes my entire argument to collapse in ruins. ReadyFreddie is a single-purpose account dedicated to removing sources from Fräulein and asserting that Fräulein is still used. The little stylistic touches like the two lines before the talk-page comment, the pattern of edits, the method of arguing all seem very similar to me. And you are using sockpuppet accounts to create the illusion that several people all agree with you: [10]. Darkspots (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Did you edit Fräulein as an IP? Can you identify which, or at least some, of the IP edits you made? Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said I recently stumled upon the Fraulein page by accident and was trying to improve upon it by describing some of the areas in which it may still be used, just as many other users had done as far back as March of 2005. I do not see anything in the article that was not there before and added by established editors. I just thought that the article sounded much better back before all of the arguing started in June of 2005. I know that this is a "highly controversial" subject. ReadyFreddie (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that it's improbable at best that a fairly new user would come upon an article, not agree with what it said, and then thoroughly comb through the article and synthesize the bits that he/she liked the best? You did not revert to June 2005, you brought in text from different revisions, all added by "established editors". It's the pattern of someone fighting about the article, not the usage of the term, if you can see the distinction. A new user would revert to a single revision he liked, or (more likely) add a couple lines that stated what he felt. It's much more likely that you are someone who has edited the article for a long time, and, stylistically, you sound and act just like User:Piononno. Darkspots 14:03, 30 November 2007

(UTC)

Maybe, it does sound similar, I do not know. Anyway, the edits from User:Piononno all say something about "educated people" using Fraulein or something to that effect. The impression that I get from the talk page is that you found these unsourced statements inappropriate; I would probably agree. That users edits appear to be pure nonesense, but the edits that I made were all made by established editors, so I really do not see how I committed any vandalism, unless all those editors also are guilty of vandalism. I personally think that the March, 2005 version is fine; if you would like to revert the article to that version, I will not make any further edits to this page. ReadyFreddie 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested submitter file a RFCU case on all users for this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Evidence -- The Smoking Gun

At 23:18, 28 November 2007, ReadyFreddie made the following edit: [11]. At 23:32, 28 November 2007, an IP, 71.174.181.168, made this edit: [12]. This is an exact duplicate of an edit made by ReadyFreddie on 27 November: [13]. The user apparently was trying to figure out how to wikilink properly. Anyway, 71.174.181.168 is an IP that ReadyFreddie was using to edit from, and after he logged out, he said, hey, gotta fix that template, let me make one more edit, so we have ReadyFreddie's IP address for that night. ReadyFreddie = 71.174.181.168. And what else, you ask, did that IP address edit? Talk:Flammability, with this edit: [14]. Now, that's the IP's first edit to that article or its talk page, BUT the edit picks right up and speaks for another IP, 172.129.15.175. It's clearly saying that the two IPs are being used by the same user: "Excuse me, you said that I have poor grammer?" is the first line of the edit.

So, ReadyFreddie = 71.174.181.168 = 172.129.15.175. And what has 172.129.15.175 been up to? Page move vandalism of Flammability, of course: [15], which annoys a lot of legitimate users, hence the heated talk page discussion. And guess who else engaged in a little page-move vandalism of Flammability back in the day? I'll give you one guess: User:Piononno: [16]. And what are the chances that a random user who "as I said I recently stumled upon the Fraulein page by accident" would also be really interested in editing Flammability, and NO other pages (except user talk pages about the two articles, etc). Hmmm. Darkspots 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

RFCU confirmed these plus a two more. BLocked and tagged them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]