Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123.236.241.218/Archive

11 March 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 " ~ "''

Both the IPs can be traced to Pune, India. All the three editors (2 IPs & Braganca4646) have been edit warring in the same set of articles and they have also pushed the same POV (although, to me, their subsequent edits look like clear vandalism, as knowingly they have reverted other editors and used defamatory edit summaries). Shovon (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- The user has accepted that he and the IPs are one and the same person. However, after the final warning was given to Braganca4646, he has again used one of the IPs to push through the same POV. I would like to request an early block to tackle the menace. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Seems good enough to me, but even if it wasn't, 123.236.241.218 should've already been blocked for POV pushing ((such as censoring an article by claiming that a source does not say something it clearly does, and using personal websites as sources despite having that part of WP:RS explained to him repeatedly, both after final warning). That his edits since then have been nuked from orbit really only makes me wonder why he hasn't been blocked by now.  I know he's claimed to be new, but new users often aren't so proficient with the ref tags (and have a hard time making 100+ edits in a few days without catching someone's eye), and usually get scared with the final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Are the IPs a proxy? It's registered to Cyberoam. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say this,what right do you people have to "trace" my ip address,have I done something wrong or is it that my edits scared the hell out of you people only because they were ful of truth which you people tend to ignore,I have given a source and cited each one of my edits,how can an article on wikipedia be called neutral if it ignores the other side of the story,also why am I being accused of sockpuppetry,I am new on wikipedia and created an account to constructively contribute to this site which I love but all I am getting is accusations instead of reflecting on the truth mentioned in my reliable sources,and stop "tracing"my ip address like im a criminal or something just because I want to make an article nuetral by giving the other side of the story.Braganca4646 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit I was using the ip range 123. but now that I have created my account I will edit only from my account in the future so the accusation of sock puppetry on me is not valid as I used to edit from that ip before creating and account and in future I will not edit from that ip.Also if someone has any problem with my edits revert them,go to talk page and lets have a debate over it instead of accusations and tracing ips,and I dont desrve to be blocked as I stopped the edits after the final warning.Braganca4646 (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just fifteen minutes before you made this post, at least one edit was made from each of the IPs. I'm trying to believe that you'll only edit from this account (and not while logged out), but I'm just not sure about it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When i made an ANI report on this user, he immediately denied he is the IP and demanded that i be blocked. We cannot assume good faith with this editor - he did not stop editing after the final warning was issued to the IP - he continued doing the same things. After his edit summaries were rev deleted, he registered this account and then continued the same. He DID NOT stop after the final warning. (Final warningw were issued on March 10, he continued edit warring over the same edits on March 11 and theis account was created on March 11 and it is continuing the same editing pattern. Someone please block this guy already.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the edits from both IPs and the account are being reverted anyway, as they are unacceptably POV. I just noted on the User talk:Braganca4646 page that the recent edit to Sambhaji was a copyright violation. I would definitely support a block here as I am pretty sure this is one of the people that will not be teachable. Some of those removed edit summaries are really over the top. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The web address http://123.236.241.218 presents a login prompt, and I believe it is hosting a site. There is a tendency to block web servers as though they were open proxies. (Unless someone is running a legitimate web site from their home machine, there is little reason for anyone to edit Wikipedia through a web server). The rapid alternation of these two IPs with the registered account on the same articles suggest that this was a conscious effort at deception. I recommend that the account Braganca4646 and the two IPs each be blocked for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes a little more sense, and is part of the reason I shouldn't try to think about this stuff at midnight. As normally with webhosts/proxys, the miniumum is 6mo (traditionally, not policy). I would aim a little more that way. With the above agreement to a block and my own opinion, I am putting this up for . -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the two IPs and Braganca4646 for six months each per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone's blocked; closing up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)