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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Zeticulan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130.101.20.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These editors seem to come from the same geographical area as User:Davkal with the same kind of agenda and rhetoric being employed as this user on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. The number of sockpuppets that this user has created is outrageous, so I think the suspicion is warranted. The comments follow the same pattern as all his other sockpuppets including User:LionelStarkweather. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wrong on both counts.

BTW, there are about 6 other errors on my sockpuppet [1] list - I have amended the relevant pages that are not me. This kind of thing takes some work and I don't want anyone else getting the adulation. Credit where credit's due and all that. Davkal. FeynLine (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is a sock of Davkal. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. We agree with one viewpoint and we're a sock of somebody else that shares that viewpoint? This is (obviously) the IP user. I have used numerous IPs, there are all from The University of Akron. Do a CU and see if the blocked user or the username above match to UA; I doubt you'll find that to be true. The username above is also not me.

In fact, I have a username that I rarely use; I have not logged into it during this discussion for this reason: I recently came upon the paranormal articles, and I have seen how heated things get. My username is my real life name and my user page includes a good deal of geographic information about me. For that reason I do not want to use it for these discussions for fear of off-wiki harassment. I will log into it while at this terminal; please, some admin, CU this IP and you will see it. You can look through my contributions there to see my writing style. All that I ask is that you do so without revealing my user ID in the process. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. Let me point out that if we use "same kind of agenda" as evidence of a sock, wikipedia would boil down to socks of one person holding each major viewpoint on every subject. I guess there is one person in favor of inclusion of paranormal inclusion. SA would therefore be a sock of some person in favor of a scientific viewpoint. 130.101.20.159 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Davkal#Davkal_3 traces the banned user to New York. The University of Akron is in Akron, Ohio. Unless you're counting the northeast 25% of the mainland US, I don't think we're in the same geographic area. 130.101.152.6 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for casting my net so broadly, but please understand that Davkal has been a pernicious and resourcefull puppetmaster. To avoid future problems, it would be good if you started a user account. If you are concerned about sullying your good name, you can start a second account to just deal with the paranormal. This is allowed per WP:SOCK#Segregation and security. I will strikethrough your IP as I am satisfied through your comments that you are not Davkal. Zeticulan still stands. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Zeticulan and FeynLine are socks but not the IP. Blocked the two socks. FeynLine had a blocked sock tag on his page but he wasn't actually blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]