Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/107.15.193.222/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Since early 2018, repeated removal of the same information from the Composition section at Hey Jude.
 * by 107.15.193.222 on 13 February 2018:
 * by 2606:a000:440b:1400:7da3:107f:adf0:852a on 9 August 2018:
 * by 2606:a000:440b:1400:5dd8:fbae:c6a7:8c22 on 13 August 2018:
 * by 2606:a000:440b:1400:6c6c:f76f:bae:73e2 on 14 September 2018:
 * by 152.33.76.93 on 19 September 2018:
 * by 2606:a000:440b:1400:7daf:5436:9863:96aa on 27 January 2019:
 * by 2606:a000:440b:1400:b490:1ef7:8e70:59e0 on 29 January 2019:

User(s) have been reverted each time due to the removal of sourced content. Among these reverts was a request, which was not answered, for the user to provide a rationale for their edit:. Not one of the user(s)' deletions has ever been explained in a comment accompanying the edit. The sockmaster made 15 edits on Wikipedia, between July 2017 and April 2018 (which led to three warnings on the user's talk page). Aside from one other edit by 2606:A000:440B:1400:B490:1EF7:8E70:59E0, the suspected puppets have made no edits on the encyclopeida other than those listed above for Hey Jude. JG66 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your comments,. Can I ask (although I feel I know the answer), is there a venue on Wikipedia for this? JG66 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment,, I can't think of any venue that would be particularly helpful here, so I have given the IPv6 address a week-long block with a descriptive message in the log. Hopefully, the user will see it and respond on one of their user talk pages. Protection of Hey Jude might be an option, but as Bbb23 wrote, the disruption is too sporadic, and that wouldn't likely be effective. If the user continues with this behavior after the block expires, please contact me via my user talk page and I'll consider a longer block. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Very considerate of you, thank you. I appreciate the problem. JG66 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The IP edits are too few and too sporadic to take any action. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, 107.15.193.222 and 2606:a000:440b:1400::/64 (which contains all of the IPv6 addresses above) belong to the same ISP in the same town, and given the same edits, they almost certainly are the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses of the same internet connection. That isn't sockpuppetry, it is someone being assigned different addresses by their cable modem or network interface. The other IPv4 address belongs to a nearby university, so it stands to reason that the edit was made by the same person.
 * Second, all except the three edits this month are stale as far as CheckUser is concerned, and we do not use CU in cases involving IP-only editing.
 * Last, all except the three edits mentioned above are stale as far as any other sanctions are concerned. The only likely way to communicate with the user is to block their IPv6 address (2606:a000:440b:1400::/64) to get their attention, but that isn't a matter for this venue.
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * —DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)