Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/120.19.204.143/Archive

18 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

No Idea who it is, seems to be clearly sock of some one using the Ip to Taunt me and avoid scrutiny. Might be some one logged out Might be an open proxy

Dont care, If its some one who is not blocked or banned forward evidence to Arbcom let them figure out what to do. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The privacy policy still does not let us divulge what editor uses an IP. Even if they are socking. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont care if you declare it here, but you can forawrd the result to arbcom right since they are cleared to know such things The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can determine if it is an open proxy without the use of CheckUser, additionally there are no accounts associated with this IP. Tiptoety  talk 04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanx, for checking. How would I check that? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP is blacklisted on two sites. And it appears to be a mobile phone in Australia. I'm inclined to block since it's almost certainly a block - this was their first edit; not a beginner by any standard. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if its mobile phone then collateral would likely be much to be worth. Thanx again. i thought only Check user could determine proxys for some reason. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP 3 days for evasion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And unblocked. You must have accidently neglected to note that here.  Now that I've brought your attention to the matter, perhaps you can also correct the snide "potential" from your false positive in my block log?  I mean, I know it's highly unlikely that an administrator would ever not do the entire job and blindly block because it suits them, but you know.. someone might accidently be confused by your well-meaning remark.120.19.252.23 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)