Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd)

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:D.A.V.I.D. (2nd.)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

D.A.V.I.D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AULINE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andreve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.252.50.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

GSTQ (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1. 193.252.50.118's, D.A.V.I.D.'s, AULINE's and Andreve's contributions are limited to Baron de Longueuil and Michael Grant, 12th Baron de Longueuil.

2. 193.252.50.118's, D.A.V.I.D.'s and AULINE's edits have altered the text so as to present the point of view that there is a dispute as to the rightful holder of the title. Specifically, the edits suggest that once Canada was ceded to Britain, the French branch of the family (assuming there is one) succeeded to the title in preference to the Canadian branch. The motivation for Andreve's edits borders on incomprehensible, but he seems to be trying to call into question the French descent of the current holders of the title. None of the edits has been substantiated by citations, on the contrary the edits fly in the face of the citations already present on the article pages. All the signed-in users have been invited to provide citations and engage in discussion, both on their own talk pages and on the article talk page. Only D.A.V.I.D. has responded, and only twice. The first oblique post by D.A.V.I.D. simply makes an unsourced assertion along the same lines, and voices agreement (whatever that means) with Souht, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of D.A.V.I.D. The second has similarly failed to engage with the issues.

3. All three users appear from the grammar of their edits and edit summaries and posts to be non-native speakers of English. 193.252.50.118, D.A.V.I.D. and Andreve all use "Thank you!" with the exclamation mark: see here, here and here. Both 193.252.50.118 and Andreve have used the phrase "Please show me..." in their edit summaries and posts, see here and here.

4. D.A.V.I.D. has been accused of sockpuppetry before, and has not denied the allegation or provided any evidence to suggest that it was unfounded.

5. None of the users has contemporaneous edits with any of the others, suggesting one user logging in at different times under different accounts. 193.252.50.118 ceased making edits some time before D.A.V.I.D. began to make the same edits. There was only a short gap of about two days between the time when Souht was blocked, and AULINE appeared. Similarly, since Andreve began editing, no further edits have been made by D.A.V.I.D. or AULINE. Andreve's use of the "citation needed" template as only his second edit suggests a familiarity with Wikipedia which his edit history does not.

Comments

Andreve has now removed any ambiguity about the purpose of his edits, which is to portray the point of view that only the French descendants of Charles Lemoyne are entitled to bear the title, and thus, implicitly, not the Canadian branch of the family (a POV identical with the edits of the other accused sockpuppets and puppetmaster).GSTQ (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Looks pretty evident to me. D.A.V.I.D. has a history of sockpuppetry with the same article and the same POV, and this seems consistent with that trend. The lack of contemporaneous edits also supports this conclusion. Unless any of the editors involved have any comments to the contrary, I think this is a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry. --Nsevs • Talk 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Do I really have to request a checkuser? I'm not sure it'd do any good in this case; I could have included 82.255.91.126 as a sockpuppet too, which suggests the checkuser may not be conclusive anyway.GSTQ (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough to go on without doing a checkuser. Let's block all accounts except for D.A.V.I.D. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Andreve blocked inde. Not enough to go on to block AULINE. Could the IP be any older or staler? David temporarily blocked for continuing to abuse multiple accounts to push his POV. _GB^T/C 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]