Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/129.33.19.254/Archive

05 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

On April 3, I made an edit to shorten words in the Infobox template on the page Storm (Marvel Comics). The edit was made strictly "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." as stated on Wikipedia page Manual of Style/Infoboxes. In this case, shortening the phrase "Resistant to weather and extreme temperatures" to "Weather resistant". On April 5, it was reverted by User:129.33.19.254. I reverted his edits in good faith and left a message for doing so on his talk page. Following this, my edits were reverted again, but this time it is by a "new" User:2601:d:9400:5ff:7497:d9e6:4df2:cbce. Looking through his or her contribution edits, I see that this account was created on April 5, 2014. This user also wasted no time to head straight to the page and make the same revision as User:129.33.19.254. Normally, two users making the same edit/revision would not be suspicious, but this is.

If you look through both of their contribution edits, that have edited on the same pages: Storm (Marvel Comics), Rhino (comics), Jasper Sitwell, Eberron's World of Eberron & List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks, Machete (comics). So far, User:2601:d:9400:5ff:7497:d9e6:4df2:cbce is making the exact same edits as User:129.33.19.254. It should also be noted that User:2601:d:9400:5ff:7497:d9e6:4df2:cbce began making edits after User:129.33.19.254 stop making edits. Marvelct124 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update. Also note how they comment in the "Edit Summary" of every page they edit. They always write "rvt - .." Marvelct124 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs

 * Update. Storm (Marvel Comics). The "two users" made the same revision on this page. Revision was made here.Diff After I changed it, it was reverted again.Diff This remains to be only page whereas they have done the same revision. The listed articles above are the pages they share edits on. Together, they have done revisions on those pages, which is once again strange for a "new" user to begin doing.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Those are both IP addresses, so I don't see that a SPI would apply here. Also, there is no attempt to deceive or pretend they are different, and no attempt to get around editing restrictions. This should be closed with no action taken. —Torchiest talkedits 13:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not true. It is also possible that User:Torchiest is also a sockpuppet. Although that is speculation, it should noted that he always comes to the aid of User:129.33.19.254 as his previous edits dictate. Furthermore, this case just opened and should not be dismissed without reviewing it further. Marvelct124 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is an utterly unfounded accusation. I do sometimes "come to the aid of" 129, whom I consider something of a Wikifriend, but my previous points stand. There are no policy violations here. If you look at the list of items requested to file an SPI for sockpuppets, you'll see that one is "explain how they are being abused". That hasn't been done. —Torchiest talkedits 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "explain how they are being abused". I already did that. They are making the same edits. If I revert one of their edits, the other will only re-add it. Therefore abusing multiple accounts for a similar style of WP:CAN. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I only want to say that although my accuser has gone to some lengths to paint me as a common vandal, he has yet to put up any real evidence to back up his claims, only bold assertions. On the surface, this SPI seems to be an attempt to attack me after finding a flimsy excuse rather than trying to discuss things with me, but I will show more good faith than he has shown me and assume that he is sincere in thinking that I have done something wrong. This endless edit warring that my accuser was so certain I would resort to has not happened and will not happen. If anyone else actually thinks I have done anything wrong, I will answer to that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I recalled, I showed good faith to you when I reverted your edits and added a comment on your page. There has also been an open discussion about the future edits on a particular page involving your edits. Please do not try to play the victim. This is not personal. As stated on your talk page, the edits/revisions made between you and "another editor" are very similar and should be looked into. So I hardly find this investigation a "flimsy excuse" to "attack" you. Marvelct124 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Bagumba. I am more than willing to go to dispute resolution with Marvelct124 if he wants to, over the infobox on the Storm article (which is apparently at the heart of this dispute). Torchiest had a brief chat with him on the article talk page, but I did start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to solicit wider input into the issue. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not necessary. I just want make sure that the infobox template was within the Wikipedia guidelines. When my edits were reverted by mysterious user, I thought an investigation was necessary. Bagumba is correct in stating that IP users do not have to register an account, but I think he should "register an account" as advised by other users. Overall, I would like to state that this was not a personal attack on his character. Marvelct124 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
At worst this is the same person editing from two different computers with two different IPs. As Wikipedia doesn't require users to have a registered account, it's hard to say that they are intentionally deceiving; this is assuming it really is the same person. Without further evidence, this should be handled per Dispute resolution, not as an SPI.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if they're the same person, we can't fault someone for editing under multiple IPs unless they were actively doing so for the purpose of evading scrutiny. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)