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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Lipton sale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MER-C 09:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Back in October, the suspected puppetmaster was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. In Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Westerncrownedpigeon, User:Lipton sale nominated an image for featured picture status, claiming that the puppetmaster created the image. However, the upload log for the image shows that Lipton sale uploaded the image. Both accounts have showed a participation in FPC, see nom 1, nom 2, nom 3, nom 4 and, for the latter account, 1, 2.

The suspected sockpuppet has also vandalised another one. MER-C 09:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MER-C, that second link is *not* vandalism. You can view the source that LiptonSale added, or just google "Re-Atum Shu Tefnut masturbated" for plenty of WP:RS. With that in mind, a think a page-blanking as a user's first edit can easily be overlooked; it's not an uncommon mistake, or at worst a test of "can I really edit this thing?". Immediately afterwards, the user starts making quality contributions like [1], [2], and actually going out to take a photo of the Mayor of Washington, DC ([3]). I don't know anything about any sockpuppet allegations, but it's not fair to characterize LiptonSale as a vandal. --Sean 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure as hell looks like it. I've withdrawn this part of the suspicion. MER-C 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that he used the former username as his instant messaging ID. MER-C 09:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C you missed this FPC contribution, where coincidentally potential sock puppetry was discussed in relation to his and another new user's vote. Is it possible that User:Tenio is also a sock? --jjron (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough hard evidence to tie those accounts. MER-C 08:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I did not vandalize, at least not purposely. The first one on Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes was due to the fact that I did not know what I was doing. Take note in the fact that it was the very first one I did. My edit to Ancient Egyptian religion is not vandalism. It is part of the actual creation story-you can ask any ancient egypt or art history student and they will tell you the same. The problem is that you find it to be vandalism due to the fact that it includes the topic of masturbation. Lipton sale (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

While this edit convinces me they are the same person, Lipton's only vandalism that first edit, the rest appear to be constructive. Keep in mind Sxenko was a vandalism block, not a sock block. Also, since Sxenko was blocked, not banned, and the Lipton account was created after the block, I can not find any case WP:SOCK violation, there is not tag-teaming, vote stacking etc, so I see no reason to block the lipton account as long as edits remain constructive. If vandalism or socking appears later, I'd block and tag the accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---