Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive

Time Will Say Nothing

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

Duck. I don't think anyone who's witnessed this sorry affair will be surprised, I was just waiting for it. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Within minutes of registering, Hohohobo went to directly to Robert Shaw (theatre director) and with his first edits removed both the {{COI}} and {{refimproveBLP}} tags from the article, [1], [2]. This had been done twice before by the article's creator, Time Will Say Nothing [3], [4]. (They were subsequently restored by another editor [5] and shortly thereafter Time Will Say Nothing was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and remains so with his fourth unblock request declined yesterday evening.)
The two IPs (82.132.136.223 and 82.132.248.84 which edited Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) today (also created by TWSN), both trace back to O2 ONLINE (UK). The first one removed a reference containing an unfavourable review of a play by the above Robert Shaw based on the book and replaced it with an advertising blurb [6], shortly thereafter the second IP added a quote with a rather vague reference and then sought to justify the removal of the review on Talk:Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) [7]. In my view, the behavioral evidence is pretty strong. At the bare minimum there's meatpuppetry going on and will no doubt continue as long as TWSN remains banned and other editors continue to edit "his articles". – Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoho is obvious and I went ahead and blocked him. The IPs seem to be public computers, they have each been used by lots of other people; I don't think there's any justification for blocking them, they can just be reverted if they make controversial edits to the pages in question. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re the IPs, way too many other users. There's not much that can done about them and if the user in question in determined to evade his block, he'll just find others in any case. Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. And meat puppetry, or even just people attracted by word of mouth, is quite possible here. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just supporters and friends of this user. What a truly sad bunch of losers some of you are. 82.132.248.41 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then read up on Wikipedia's policies on meatpuppetry and personal attacks, both of which you just violated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this comment by yet another "supporter and friend". Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible as far as technical evidence is concerned; there are a few inconsistencies, though. –MuZemike 09:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hohohobo was blocked by Rjanag and the IPs are jumping around, so I'm closing this for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IP was blocked by Adambro. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This time it was 87.112.86.251; last time it was 82.132.128.0/17 basically. As far as I can see, there would be a large amount of collateral damage in blocking that range. And the most recent IP wouldn't even be covered by it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]