Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/134.88.62.140/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The IP user has apparently used multiple IPs to revert other users' attempts to revert their original edit on the page The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Amiibo. (Amiibo had to be temporarily semi-protected twice because of the resulting edit war.) Additionally, many of the IPs were used to edit just one page, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. The user has also lied on edit several times. An example of this can be found here. Several other examples can be found in the edit history of that page. Also, after several reverts done by the IP user (using various IPs), a consensus discussion came up on the Zelda talk page regarding the reverts. The IP user then attempted another revert, claiming the various reverts were other editors' consensus. Consensus issues aside, the other "editors" have mostly only edited the Zelda page, and only once. According to a discussion I started on the sock puppet talk page, IP users like this violate WP:ILLEGIT and WP:LOGOUT. I didn't notify the user so they couldn't move to another IP address before action is taken. Because most of the IPs are 73.114.25.XXX, I suggest an IP range block, as well as a block on 134.88.62.140 as the puppetmaster. Gestrid (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am almost certain they're all the same IP hopper (or if not, then definitely WP:MEATPUPPETS.) They tend to have the same obsession of going against MOS and/or consensus regarding amiibo figurines. I'd block them myself, but they thend to hop after an edit or two, so for a while I've found it effective to just page-protect the article they're causing trouble at. They have been moving on to other articles though, so help with a range block (I'm still not great with doing them personally) would be much appreciated. Sergecross73  msg me  12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Range blocks are either not feasible or not particularly helpful. A wider range block of 73.114.24.0/22 has too much collateral damage. A narrower range block of 73.114.25.0/24 doesn't do much more than knock out the four IPs listed in that range and yet still attacks IPs that are not part of the problem, albeit fewer of them. You'd be better off blocking the IPs singly that have edited most recently and continuing semi-protection of articles to the extent that helps mitigate the damage. The "master" IP, though, is a different story. I've blocked that IP for one month. I'm leaving the case open for anyone else who wishes to take additional action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably won't bother doing anything to the IPs he makes one or two edits, but the more active ones, I'll continue to block, as will I continue to protected affected articles. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  14:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the specifics of IP range blocks and how they work. Upon further investigation of the IPs (I'm trying to avoid WP:OUTING here.), it's possible the others were IPs "Starbucks" IPs (aka free Wi-Fi hotspots).  (Most edits happened around noon, also, so it was most likely during a lunchbreak.)  It would explain, among other things, why there are so many.  Thank you for blocking the main IP, as well as the input on how best to proceed in the future.  I'll continue to keep an eye on them and pages that appear to be affected. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the IPs have stopped editing. If it resumes, we can consider individual IP blocks, range blocks, or semi-protection, depending on the circumstances. Mike V • Talk 21:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)