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. 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.

Evidence

User:Copperchair was blocked for 366 days as of 13:23, March 12, 2006 for editing articles which he was banned from as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair (articles on Star Wars and War on Terrorism). User:Esaborio made his first edit on 15:31, March 16, 2006 to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and over the following weeks made many edits to Star Wars and War on Terrorism articles. The edits are very similar. Shortly before Copperchair was banned he was updating IMDB rankings of Star Wars movies ([1] [2] [3]), and when Esaborio was created he immediately started doing the same thing ([4] [5] [6]).

They have made very similar edits to War on Terrorism related subjects. Specifically, they both seek to remove references to the Iraq War as being part of the War on Terrorism and they have both shown interest in updating casualty count pages.

Esaborio's user page is also strikingly similar to Copperchair's. Compare Esaborio's page as of today here to Copperchair's user page before he was blocked here.

IP 201.199.77.202 may be Copperchair/Esaborio as well. The anon jumped into editing World War III here and here as soon as Esaborio was warned about violating 3RR, and has been making many similar edits to many articles concurrently with Esaborio. See also:

1. Template:World War II, where the two made edits within three minutes of each other between 14:21, July 27, 2006 and 14:24, July 27, 2006
2. War on Terrorism, where the anon removed Iraq from the list of WoT theaters here, was reverted, and had the change put back in by Esaborio here.
3. World War III again, here, where the IP makes one of Esaborio's favorite edits as seen here and here.

A request for checkuser was filed (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Copperchair) but requests for checkuser are currently on hold. TomTheHand 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

---

When I asked Esaborio if he was Copperchair, he did not deny it. PBP 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esaborio has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule, but he posted the following on his talk page and requested that it be posted here:

According to TomTheHand, I have at least two different computers at home, since when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is also blocked, and he claims I am Copperchair, whose account was blocked. Note that Copperchair used to edit at the same hours of the day as I do, which is logic, as we are both from the same country (Costa Rica), and the hours we have both use are night time, when one has free time. I took part of the User page of Copperchair for my own, since when I looked what User's pages linked to Universidad de Costa Rica, where apparently we both graduated from, I found his/her. After revising Copperchair's contributions and mine, one can see that while we both share the same interests (Star Wars and the War on Terrorism), Copperchair used to edit almost exclusively and daily a large list of Star Wars articles, and just one about the War on Terrorism. On the contrary, I edit a lot of war articles (not just from the War on Terrorism), and have only edited the articles of the Star Wars movies (less than six), and sporadically. He/she also openly said, and showed, with his/her edits, he/she had a grudge against the newest versions of the Star Wars films, which I don't. How can a user that said “Personally, I HATE the 2004 DVD version of the Star Wars Trilogy” suddenly forget about waging war against it? Note that he/she used the word “hate”, in bold, no less, which proves how much he/she disliked it. On the other hand, however, I must admit I have used the IP 201.199.77.202, and am willing to face the consequences for doing so. Since this case is based on an absurd exaggeration from TomTheHand, intent on blocking a user just for don't sharing his opinion about an article or two related to war, I must ask it to be disesteemed. Esaborio 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is only temporarily blocked in response to attempts by the blocked user to edit. TomTheHand 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting problem exists in the explanation put forward by Esaborio. For one, Copperchair was banned in March 16th. It was not until June 19th that he copied the user page and pasted it at his own in this edit, here: [7]. You will note that he forgot to change the link in the "Feel free to leave me any comments" portion, which still links to Copperchairs user page. It seems odd to me that you would just happen to stumble upon this user page of a banned member a good 3 months after he made his last edit. As for the other points, these mean little. Before June I dont think that I ever edited an article relating the the Israeli army, yet since this time I have almost devoted my entire time here to working on things related to the ongoing operations. The fact that the edit wars were resumed in both the Star Wars and War on Terrorism related articles nearly seamlessly, and on the same side of the dispute at that, is pretty solid proof of sockpuppetry. What you would have us beleive is that you came to Wikipedia, and 3 months after someone made their last edit copied their user page as you just happened to have gone to the Universidad de Costa Rica and graduated in 2005, just happened to have studied law, and just happened to hold identical views and present identical reasoning as someone who you had never before seen (due to him being gone by the time you arrived.) This premise is unbeleivable. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled upon this, [8], Copperchair uploaded the image, and after it was deleted the very same image was uploaded again by Esaborio. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough to block. Iolakana|^T 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]