Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ג'יס/Archive

17 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

On 24 July 2014, 109.23.76.41 added info about antisemitism (one, two) in the page about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Some minutes after, ג'יס fixes some links in that part (one). On 31 July, ג'יס moves the section about antisemitism from under "Prime Ministership" to the top, putting it as a section above "Prime Ministership" because "Not just during prime ministership" (one). On 4 August, he added some more about antisemitism (one).

On 13 August, 109.23.76.41 added more about antisemitism (one, two). This got reverted by another user some minutes after (one). An half hour after that, ג'יס reverts and add back that part (one). He adds one part more (one). Then 109.23.76.41 fix the grammar on that part (one). I reverted it (one, two). Then ג'יס reverts me (one).

In the article about Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, they two have edited similarly. 109.23.76.41 adds info about antisemitism (one, two). Some minutes after, adds more (one). After I removed one part three days ago (one), ג'יס today reverts and add more (one).

I suspect they are the same person and if so, they are using different accounts to back up themself, which is unacceptable (WP:ILLEGIT). A CheckUser can look into their technical connections. IRISZOOM (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, he backs himself up. Read WP:ILLEGIT. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Even if its him what exactly his offense?The editor may have edited logged out but he didn't broke any rules--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Per the Privacy policy, CheckUsers will not publicly link a named account to an IP address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this case with no action taken. The IP is dynamic and could have been reassigned by now. In addition, there doesn't seem anything actionable at this point. There's a sign of some possible edit warring, but a block at this point would be punitive. If this becomes a reoccurring issue it can be examined then. Mike V  •  Talk  13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)