Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/129.59.115.1/Archive

26 April 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 " ~ "''

First noticed as disruptive editing in Presidential Scholars Program, with possible WP:COI tie-ins. After reverts, appears that editor changed tactics to create a set of sockpuppets who collectively are pasting in content from textbooks, along with occasional disruptive editing. The coincidence of like-minded new editors makes it seem that most (or all) are the same individual. TEDickey (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Note: I have removed 129.59.115.1 from the suspected sockpuppet list because that a cannot be a sockpuppet of itself. EBE123 talkContribs 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm endorsing this not for a check against the IP, but for the accounts against each other. I'm not convinced this is sockpuppetry, though - it may be a class or something. But let's see what's going on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem a lot more like a class project that sockpuppetry. (After all, sockpuppetry to what end here?) Before we go the CheckUser route, and I know this is a crazy suggestion, could you perhaps ask them what is up, Tedickey? Especially since you've been going around reverting them, which would be rather unwelcoming if they are acting in good faith. There might be a good explanation. Dominic·t 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know - there hasn't been (except for the comment at the top of the IP's talkpage apparently replying to someone else) any comments by the editor(s). TEDickey (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they very much look like newbies to me. What kind of responses were you expecting from warning templates and boilerplate welcomes? Why don't you try showing them the best our community has to offer, first, and give them a chance? I see very little likelihood that these are acting in bad faith. That IP is coming from Vanderbilt, incidentally. Dominic·t 09:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I've not been the only one reverting, etc. TEDickey (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand (I should be quicker to notice) that ".1" on the IP-address implies that it's a gateway rather than the (more common) individual IP-assignments. So a class assignment might be a better explanation. TEDickey (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that they are a class, especially as the IP you list resolves to Vanderbilt University. Being that it is a university IP, CU won't add too much anyway. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No other action sock wise needed here. Take to other noticeboards if action is needed. DQ.alt (t)  (e)    17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)