Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.90.245.113/Archive

20 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

At the end of May 2013, 117.90.175.27 began edit warring a change on the SWAT article. His actions ended up getting the article semi-protected until December 2013. 3 weeks later, 11790.245.113 begins a !vote on the article talk page to make the changes. Soon after, 121.232.251.115 and 180.118.52.131 start editing to support the first IP. All 4 are from the same provider and the same city in China. There is significant overlap in the edit histories. The different IP's I can understand, but when they're voting in the same discussion, pretending to be new, it starts smelling like a sock. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 117.90.175.27 has edited only at the SWAT article
 * 2) 117.90245.113 has edited at SWAT, Han Chinese, Gavin Menzies , ironclad warships and turtle ship  all in the same day.
 * 3) 121.232.251.115 has also edited Han chinese, Gavin Menzies , ironclad warships and turtle ship  the very next day. It also edited Acupunture.
 * 4) 180.118.52.131 went on later yesterday to edit acupunture making the same edit as the previous IP.
 * 5) 49.84.13.116 started posting after this was filed and has the same overlapping edit history, same provider, different city.

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

I've added 117.90.215.118 per and the preceding edit, which is similar to other IP adress edits on the article Han Chinese.

And, I've added 114.229.143.114, because of, which is similar as the other Ironclad warship edits. The user also appears on Turtle ship socking the same edits. --Cold Season (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All edits made were in good faith and added true and historically accurate information to the article, please watch this History Channel Documentary if you doubt any of our edits about the Korean Turtle Ship:

[Link removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.118.163.207 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Added 114.229.248.69. Same Provider and city, sole edit is the SWAT discussion . He even tries to pretend like he's in the Philipines. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 49.84.13.116 is currently blocked for edit warring and copyvio. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of our colleagues is from Manilla, Phillipines! 180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously a new visit by ProfessorJane /AkramBinWallid (links go to SPI archives), who has already been indef blocked under both of those identities. The obvious tells are the edit wars at SWAT, cheerleading for Menzies, misleading edit summaries and attempts to cram sources into the summaries but not the article body, and flagicon clutter, all of which are common in the edits by PJ/ABW and the IPs connected with them. Also check out the socking in article talk and SPI pages, as well as the nationalistic POV and the use of Easter egg and misleading links. Quack quack. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In terms the Gavin Menzies, Mr. Ergative rlt and his friends are responsible for a hostile campaign of personal attacks and character assassination of Mr. Gavin Menzies who does not deserve to be so mistreated with such disrespect. His history books were written after extensive research into different old maps and historical documents, but his page must edited in accordance with official Wikipedia policy on maintain Neutral Point of View. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr.Ergative rlt, who are you to be making judgements about who can and who cannot edit Wikipedia, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" ! As I mentioned before all of our edits had all been in good faith, we have never vandalised pages or inserted crazy like some of your contemporaries within your cohort. The only flags we introduced on the Han Chinese page are a necessity because Hong Kong and Macau are both officially special territories of China, and if you had studied your highschool Geography and history you would know this. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You know very well what you are doing. It's obvious that you claim to do one thing while attempting to slip other POV things in by your misleading statements. You do this repeatedly while switching IP addresses despite the fact that many users revert you.--Cold Season (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick glance at Talk:SWAT makes it very obvious that this is a serial sockpuppet at work. ROG5728 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 180.118.163.207 just made the same attack on the talk page that he made a month ago when he got a block as 180.118.162.203.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sock accusations are ridiculous and getting very very old, everyone is free according to official Wikipedia policy to edit in good faith. Explain to me how is our desire to introduce the term "Police Special Operations" in the first paragraph of the SWAT article is not a good faith edit???? We have done nothing wrong whereas you...Mr Niteshift36 are guilty of failing to provide evidence to back up your statements and routinely posting your biased point of view on the SWAT page without providing sources showing that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit. I challenge you to even find one source that saids that! 180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Niteshift36 is not being honest to you. If you would examine his editing history you can see that Niteshift36 and his gang of Wikipedia friends repeatedly edit war on the SWAT page in order to push his POV that the SWAT Team is not a Special Operations or Special Forces unit. We have tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page but seemed to be talking to a brick wall. As Mr. Niteshift36 is not interested in compromising with us on the terminology used for the SWAT article. We have repeatedly stated that we are willing to compromise with him on the issue by using the term "Special Operations" instead of our original desire to have the SWAT page use the term "Police Special Forces." Niteshift36 then tries to accuse us of being socks despite the fact that we are a group of individuals who just want to see the SWAT page be given justice and the recognition that SWAT operators deserve for their role in the Special Operations or Special Forces community due to the many sacrifices made by Police SWAT operators during high risk operations and risking their lives for the safety of civilians. We don't want any trouble, we only want the rightful recognition of SWAT operators as Police Special Operations or Police Special Forces units. 180.118.163.207 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you're Canvassing to slant the article instead of sockpuppeting... which is just as bad as socking. --Rschen7754 20:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not canvassing anything, all we did was post a discussion on the SWAT Talk page to introduce the term "Police Special Operations" or "Police Special Forces" to the first paragraph of the page and Mr. Niteshift36 repeatedly tries to prevent anyone from editing the SWAT page. In the past several years, many of our Police SWAT colleagues have been killed in action and it does a great deal of injustice if we do not recognize SWAT operators for what they really are, Police Special Operations unit operators. We sacrifice our lives to save the lives of other civilians and all we have recieved is disrespect and contempt by the likes of Mr. Niteshift36 and friends. He has not provided any proof or evidence that shows that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit as he claims but we have provided the reputable sources that prove indisputably that SWAT is indeed a Special Operations unit, please read here:

[Link removed]

180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not for content disputes. This is about sock puppetry. And who is "we"? Are you expecting us to believe that this is multiple accounts from the same city, with different users and you are their spokesman?Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Niteshift36, stop trying to use the excuse blocking socks as a way to keep the SWAT article contaminated with your biased point of view. Use your brain, you cannot block innocent people from editing with a lame "sock" excuse. Everyone is entitled to have freedom to edit Wikipedia as long as the edits are good faith. Which in our case is true, but in your case Mr.Niteshift36 is false, you are pushing your own POV that SWAT is not a Special Operations unit and repeatedly removed any reference in the first paragraph to Special Operations or Special Forces. You have provided absolutely no documented evidence or reputable sources to back up your claim but instead rely upon your group of friends to help you edit war the page and try to prevent editors from editing Wikipedia using various lame "sock" excuses. It is getting very old!!! We have tried many times to compromise with you on the issue, for example we are willing to settle on using the term "Special Operations" instead of "Special Forces" on the SWAT page. And the numerous links we provided further support our position against yours! :) 180.118.163.207 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not where content disputes are discussed. So you are a "group" of of users who just want to honor SWAT....and ironclad ships, Gavin Menzies, turtle ships and Han Chinese. What are the odds?Niteshift36 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Added five IPs, beginning with 117.90.244.133, who are now editwarring on several articles. Also, note that 180.118.163.207 is now using the same "Judge not..." that 49.84.13.116 did yesterday, and that confirmed ProfessorJane sock 114.229.255.146 used in prior SPI discussions. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The newest is 180.118.160.171 per, which can be checked with the above reported user IPs with edits on that article.--Cold Season (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 3 more. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 121.232.240.148. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 49.84.13.116 Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 117.90.247.243 - these are all coming from Zhenjiang. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 114.229.174.204.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closed. Lectonar has semiprotected the page to stop the IPs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)