Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidP1953/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


DavidP1953

DavidP1953 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The IP user began edits on Bob's Burgers on February 14, 2011 attempting to incorporate trivia not supported Wikipedia policy or by consensus. After a bit of edit warring and several confrontational comments on the talk page and a short while after the IP was told he was alone in his dissent, user DavidP1953 appeared out of retirement on March 27, 2011 (his last edit before that was September of 2009), using the word "respectfully" and supporting the controversial edits of the IP. Though the tones of both editors seems different (the IP is still more confrontational than the user, though less so than he was before, and the IP was being signed on the talk page by the SineBot, while DavidP1953 has had no such problem), their obsession with not only this page but specifically and exclusively this particular edit seems more than a little coincidental, and since his appearance, DavidP1953 has only edited in tandem with and in support of the IP on this one issue. It seems entirely possible, even likely, that both accounts are the same person trying to bolster a consensus, and in spite of that consensus clearly not existing, it has caused an unneccesary disruption to both that page and the List of Bob's Burgers episodes and related talk page that the debate has now spilled over into. If the IP is not the same as the user, then the matter is currently being handled appropriately on the subsequent talk pages and I would consider this matter closed, but if my suspicions are correct and they are the same user, he should be blocked. KnownAlias contact 16:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This accusation is entirely unfounded! I've never signed in and edited under any other name or ID! DavidP1953 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

no Declined – First off, a CheckUser will not directly link an account to an IP address. Secondly, I think the behavioral evidence clearly suggests that they're the same, to the point where CU is not necessary. –MuZemike 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



06 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

No sooner did you block 131.156.253.108 for a week, than BlueMondo131 came into existence, and his first (and so far only) edit was to jump on the Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes to criticize an editor for "personal attacks" on DavidP1953 in a manner eerily similar to a very recent statement by DavidP1953 himself about me (for suggesting, as several editors have, that he bone up on any of the numerous Wiki policy links he's been provided with, and suggesting that he was a little too obsessed with the subject to be objective). He, as this newest persona, also emphasized to this editor that "we" resolved the matter (though I'm the editor that "resolved" it for the sake of consensus, and have protested it every step of the way) in an apparent attempt to avoid further reversions based on the fact that I added a recent note pointing out that his most recent attempt at a source is mostly unrelated to the information on the page. It also bears noting that both of these editors use the same double indentation on the talk page (using two colons for the first single indentation and hovering in that general area for the majority of their comments) and have referred to the other editor, user name Rusted AutoParts, by the initials RAF in both of the examples I've already provided in this new section. I think DavidP1953 has found himself another consensus sock. KnownAlias contact 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

There is no need for any explanation of this on my end because in fact we are entirely unrelated users. All objective research will prove this. Also, if the admins in place would view the offending article, they will easily see that this "sockpuppeting" block attempt is for KnownAlias's personal gain at winning an edit war.--BlueMondo131 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I'm trying to win the war, then why am I the editor that incorporated the data that even I objected to into the episode table for the sake of a consensus? Every other editor just wanted it gone, and you "two" are the only ones who supported it. It's the only edits "either of" you seem to exist to serve. PS Pretty neat trick for a guy with 3 edits to his name to know what a sock puppet is and look there, much less find the archive of this case. KnownAlias contact 05:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take a wiki-veteran to google "wikipedia blocked IP". If you have no problem with the content, why are we even having this invalid sockpuppet nonsense? --BlueMondo131 (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any claims that I have logged in and edited under any other name or ID other than my own are nonsense, unfounded, and without merit. I have never done this. DavidP1953 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Red X Unrelated –MuZemike 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

They seem to know what a meat puppet is, because a thinly veiled reference to one by myself on a previous Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes post caused BlueMondo131 to openly admit to being the 1 wk blocked 131.156.253.108 HERE, and references my belief that both he and DavidP1953 are the same person HERE, though trying to deny that one as being true. But unless he's following my edit history to see this (an interesting talent for an editor with only 3 talk page edits to his history), there's only one way he'd know that, and that is to actually be all 3. Tone of the notes are, as you can tell, mocking and antagonistic. And they all still share the same habits of needing a SineBot and of posting talk responses two indents in (::) after another editor's page bordered post when an initial one (:) is appropriate. I threw in the 173.188.139.225 IP as the DavidP1953 identity posted once under that IP while apparently unaware he was not signed in, and after signing back in, responded directly to the comment I made to the IP as if I were talking to him. So to summarize, DavidP1953 is 173.188.139.225 by his own admission, who directly and exclusively supported the sole and controversial edits of 131.156.253.108 who BlueMondo131 just confessed to being. KnownAlias contact 05:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


I'm not sure what the big conspiracy is here but this is all unwarranted and a waste of admin time. Do the research and you'll see that there is no "sockpuppeting" here.--BlueMondo131 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note In the meantime, I have blocked BlueMondo 24 hours for edit warring; he seems to know policy and guidelines fairly well. –MuZemike 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DavidP1953/Archive&oldid=1038390108"