Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/109.186.234.86/Archive

16 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both IPs registered to the same Israeli ISP, both editing Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler to argue that it is not an "art film" in the same writing style - rhetorical questions, bracketed asides sometimes ending in exclamation points, starting sentences with "Furthermore", writing "i.e.," with an idiosyncratic comma.

109.186.234.86 was blocked for a month for edit warring, and that block is still active. McGeddon (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes, that's me! My IP address changes sporadically and automatically every now and then without me asking my computer to do so... Didn't know it was prohibited. Sorry if I broke any rule... Regardless, please take my arguments seriously. 46.116.236.78 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked for block evasion, since he just admitted to it above. Sergecross73   msg me   19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

18 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Appears to be another new IP for a user whose one-month block does not expire until 26 September. A couple of days ago they explained that they didn't know that editing from a different IP counted as block evasion. Today they know. McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Looks like the same user. Block the IP for evading the block and close. Doc  talk  09:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, closing. Legoktm (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

30 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

He admits as much here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. A likely example of the previous edit by the previous sock, undid, as per his description of his recent edits, here. Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: User called himself "banned", but in fact he had merely been blocked, and the block had long ago expired, so this is simply a new IP of a non-blocked user, and thus completely a false alarm on my part. My apologies for not checking the block log. Please consider this request withdrawn. Choor monster (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I was indeed banned once but I believe that this ban has long ago since been revoked due to the passage of time. Also, as my computer changes IPs from time to time without me asking and without my control (this is rather common I believe), I am not a sockpuppet. Anyway, take it easy. I am not here to pick up a fight. You can retain those categories if you wish so with such vehemence. I understand perfectly now that one cannot revert one's own previous edits if other editors oppose it and I am promising that I will not do so again. Now, I am not getting banned, am I? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the previous blocks expired a long time ago. S/he has a dynamic IP; that's not quite socking.&mdash; Lucas Thoms 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to kindly close down now this discussion as well as the ANI case? Thanks! 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No action needed. I'm marking the case as closed. Mike V  •  Talk  00:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)