Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.218.77.253/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Dana60Cummins
Also the information the user(s) added is off key to a large extent. All of the users edits may have to be reverted.
 * Cone Type LSD (Talk).
 * Limited slip differential (Revision history)
 * Locking differential (Revision history)
 * Differential (mechanical device) (Revision history) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana60Cummins (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that the IPs have been operated by the same person. No CU necessary. MuZemike 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
It's clear that the IPs are the same person, and that this person is IP-hopping; unfortunately, rangeblocking is out of the question. But I ask: is there a reason why a block is needed here? Is there evidence of disruption, edit-warring, etc. for this person that you can bring forward? MuZemike 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cone Type LSD (Talk).


 * Limited slip differential (Revision history)
 * Locking differential (Revision history)
 * Differential (mechanical device) (Revision history)

Is about all the evidence I can provide. Edit warring, maybe possible. Disruption, in my opinion, yes. He has made over a dozen edits to these areas, that are wrong/askew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana60Cummins (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken. Report may have been good at the time (despite IMO very weak evidence of abuse), but the IPs have stopped editing on the involved articles for almost two days now. If abuse starts occurring, then I would recommend requesting semi-protection, because rangeblocks will not help here as the range is too large to block. MuZemike 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)