Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.44.133.67/Archive

02 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Extremely similar pattern of behavior edit warring on Paul Keating. Abusive language on talk pages. Blanking out of warnings on their on talk pages. Alans1977 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * has blocked the 190.44.133.67 IP for 3 months for personal attacks and harassment and the 187.17 IP hasn't edited since June 18th. Closing.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

04 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This edit, by confirmed sock 187.17.52.174, is being defended by the above IPs. I realize the IPs are stale. However, the newest, 190.162.88.128, is denying they are a sock (though the Best known IP repeatedly criticizes others for supposed "lies"). In addition to getting a second set of eyes to confirm these are socks, I am requesting a sweep to find other IPs used/being used. Additionally, should this case be moved to a "dummy" account, given this report?

202.56.53.71 restores the edit in question. Only made three edits, but the other two were consistent with the vandal's concerns with minutia. Additionally, the revert complies with the vandal's consistent theme of personal attacks (edit sum: "rv twat").

202.68.85.254 reverts the edit Made only four edits, but the other three were consistent with the vandal's concerns with minutia and had edit sums with minor attacks.

190.161.182.12 reverts the edit in question, makes person attacks on minutia and is very concerned that we are saying Thomas Andrew Lehrer is "known as" Tom Lehrer. Also repeatedly uses the vandal's repeated claims of "peacock words" and "waffles".

190.162.88.128 is currently blocked for disruption. Is defending the edit, vile personal attacks, "peacock words", "waffles", etc. "what a fucking moron. Is this how you enjoy yourself? get a fucking life." Sum mer PhD (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Procedural CU decline as only IPs are listed. The behavioural evidence will need to be evaluated by an admin or clerk to determine if any action should be taken.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the two IP ranges are from different continents and there is nearly an overlap I'm not convinced that they are related. So closing with no action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)