Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy

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

Marlon.sahetapy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dr.Sauerkraut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brasileiro1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Le Professeur70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PanteraNegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical editing patterns to the same few articles. Using different accounts to evade 3RR and, I presume, to make it appear that there is broader consensus for inserting/removing "greatest" claims into footballer articles. See conversation at WP:AN/I

See:

Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Brasileiro1969 making three blanket reverts, [7], [8] and [9] I left messages on the article talk page explaining why the revert was a bad edit, and warning of potential 3RR infringement. No response has been forthcoming, but PanteraNegro did show up to make the exact same blanket revert [10]. aLii 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Marlon.sahetapy (talk · contribs) deleted this SSP entry at 12:56, March 15, 2007 and again at 13:19, March 15, 2007 (UTC). It was reverted and he was warned. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marlon and Brasileiro1969 accounts are being used to vandalise my userpage, and to add uncivil personal attacks. I see this as more evidence of sockpuppetry. He also attempted to edit this page. I reverted it as it messed up the page. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubacca, seems like they just react to unprovoked libel from your end. Numerous editors on here find you pushy and using ill-supported arguments. However, I agree with you that their reactions to you were somewhat emotional; reactions you also conveniently deleted from both here and your discussion page. Why? Talking about manipulating the argument. PanteraNegro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 March 2007

Obvious socks per above. I would have already indefblocked all if I weren't marginally involved (Brasileiro1969 reverted one of my edits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-22 05:57Z

Blocked. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 01:22Z

Response by Brasileiro1969

Stubacca, Stubacca.. I am not vandalising your homepage, but am just making my feelings known on your discussion page. Where you have removed comments of both myself and the person you accuse of being my puppetmaster. Now if you were a sport and have nothing to hide, you would leave the comments as they were. Reacted to them; potentially calmed us down (nobody likes being falsely accused, but everyone hates being accused behind their backs - I only found out by looking at your tracks. So why dont you shape up your own behaviour first instead of cloaking your poor editing with policies you half-read and consensus that isnt there. No again, Stubacca -> be a sport and respect my comments on your behaviour. Thank you. I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles. - + - + As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) - + Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are are vandalising my userpage. If you want to make your feeling known on my talk page then make them in a civil way. I consider the rest of your comments an incoherent, unsubstantiated rant. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want it to be known that I have nothing to with this and that I am highly surprised by all this. But I a bit of surfing uncovered this for me... Have read Stubacca's allegation accusing someone else to be my puppetteer. I also read his threads and reponses on his discussion page (incl. the ones Stubacca's deleted in response to your false allegations, all in an attempt to make your discussion page look clean), football project, and those on the football pages Stubacca has been editing on his little crudade. The one commonality I see is his frustration in losing the consensus on his favorite footballer followed ny his relentless efforts to then trying to get some form of satisfaction. First by vandalizing pages of true football greats, for which Stubacca received an official caution (Johan Cruijff) after a discussion you initiated on football project backfired on you. And secondly by falsely accusing other members who do not share your opinion of puppeteering. Am sure this one will backfire on you as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Below his caution on Cruyff plus an excerpt of the discussion [reply]

Comment: Having just stumbled across this due to having some interest in the George Best article over the past week or so, it does indeed look very dubious that most (all?) of the above accused editors made their first contribution on or around March 4, and all on the same article (George Best). I guess that admins with IP address records can sort it out properly though, so if you are innocent then you should have nothing to fear. You don't appear innocent to me though, sorry :( aLii 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Why dubious? given the number of articles and editors it is a given that this will occur from time to time. My interest stems from being a Benfica fan and my edits to the page in question were minor. Regarding yourself aLii just happen to notice as that you are very keen to revert minor edits of mine on the George Best page whilst you engage in blanket edits of the Johan Cruijff page. Exactly the page that Stubacca turned his attention to after being knocked back on George Best. Stubacca ended up receiving a 3RR caution and then came up with this allegation. Alli, are you a sockpuppet of Stubacca? ...an accusation with a wink. People go mad to easily these days.

Conclusions

3 already blocked by Quarl, and his reasoning looks fine to me, so the fourth is now blocked as well, and the puppetmaster for 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]