Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.224.183.184/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

219.65.32.219 votes at Afd discussion without rationale. KaisaL (not to be considered a sock) asks 219.65.32.219 to provide a rationale. Morph1138 thereafter ivotes with rationale after 219.65.32.219 and KaisaL. Also, Morph1138 only contribution is the aforementioned Ivote. This was first mentioned by KaisaL. KaisaL then mentioned that he or she felt as though "canvassing is taking place". Then I agreed. However, in reality, I have been feeling like sock puppetry is taking place.

Now, to tie in 195.224.183.184 - - On July 2, this editor jumped over the other AfD participants to the top of the page and Ivoted with "This should be kept. Their YouTube channel is the second most subscribed wrestling channel only behind WWE. They have more subscribers than TNA the channel is so large". On July 5, Morph1138 stated something very similar "...though the sources are from self promoted pages, they are still verifiable and have more subscribers / watchers than any other wrestling related YouTube page with the exception of WWE, which in itself is notable. The main event of the first episode has already attracted over 180,000 viewers and continues to grow..." . From the immediately preceding comment, a likely deduction for "...the sources are from self promoted pages..." are the YouTube videos mentioned in this paragraph. That is how it seems to me. Please note: it may be that 219.65.32.219 is the sockmaster, so if you could also check from this perspective it would be appreciated. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Please note Morph1138 just now created his or her user page at 5:08, 6 July 2016, . When I first opened this investigation at 4:36 on 6 July 2016- this was a red-linked account. Also, the only single edit, as a red-linked account, was to an Afd discussion at 21:29, on 5 July 2016, until replying to this investigation for the first time at 05:01, 6 July 2016, , .--- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - in case it is necessary to say how these accounts appear to be used abusively, per sock puppetry - if this investigation affirms sock puppetry, then it is being employed to influence the outcome of the AfD in the diffs. The particular AfD is entitled: Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - also in case it needs to be stated - someone with the capability will have to determine the IP address for the Morph1138 account. I do not have this capability. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -OK I was not aware that an account was considered the sock master. There is one account listed with the two IPs above. If I happen to come here again, then I will know to do this. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this IP is listed as sock master. I thought I entered the other IP as aock master because the instructions say the oldest edit first, and that is why I posted the other IP. Also, I am not clear about what is meant by dual entries. One set is for accounts and the other set is for IP addresses - in this situation both applied.Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is not an accusation, it is an investigation.Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure this request will go anywhere because for privacy reasons there is no way a public sockpuppet investigation is going to be done on a user account versus an IP address. KaisaL (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not originally choose "yes" for a checkuser. However, based on User:Kaisal's comment, and after reviewing some other investigations, I am now requesting a checkuser investigation in combination with this sock investigation. Also, I am not concerned about results being made public. I am only concerned with the correct and appropriate outcome as deemed by the admins here. I am also in the dark as to how this actually works - so perhaps it sounds like that. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry I've had this account for years and never use it. I don't particularly understand what is happening here, as today has been the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia and am being accused of not being me? Can someone explain this to me please? Morph1138 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is about defending the WCPW page I don't get it. That was the first time I ever felt passionately enough about something (as I'm a big fan of theirs) that I actually tried to figure out how to use this site to voice my opinion. I don't see how that makes me a "sockpuppet" just because I agreed with another user From my user info: "Registration time:	18:16, 25 March 2008". Morph1138 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you need my permission an admin can use the CheckUser thing on me. I have nothing to hide. To be honest I feel targeted because I have responded appropriately and intelligently about an article flagged for deletion we have a difference of opinion on. The two IP's used for this account are my home and my work. Morph1138 (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular user of Wikipedia. I just edit once or twice. And as you all know the IP address changes all the time. I'm not a sockpuppet. If you want me to explain my vote for the page, I would love to. I was in a hurry yesterday which is why I couldn't explain my vote. But if you want to delete that page, delete it. I'm in no way related to any of the previous users or the creator of that page. Check before you allege something. I'm not a regular editor of this wiki, so I don't even care. Ban me if you want. I won't care. 219.65.32.219 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And, oh, I'm the sock master?! What would you do, after the admins use the 'CheckUser' thing, and I'm not found to be sockpuppet or master of any kind? I want a public apology from you. I'm not threatening you but I want you to apologize to me. You can ask the admins to block me, I won't mind, but I want an apology. 219.65.32.219 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment (minor): I removed duplicate accounts and IPs listed in this report, and I think you're supposed to list an account as the sock master in SPI reports. No worries though; an SPI clerk will fix that if needed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment : It is an accusation as there is an investigation. Like I said before, not a welcoming start to Wikipedia when the first thing you comment on gets your account investigated because you were accused of sock puppetry by someone you disagreed with. Morph1138 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment There looks to be something unusual going on here. I was researching for a report and I ran across another AFD where user KaisaL was being confronted or conversing with another ip address here" 208.81.212.224 which geolocates to a certain place. I notice this ip 208.81.212.224  is starting to show up at several AFDs for artists and music people's bios to !vote  and discuss. Plus the other suspicious one that opened a named account on July 3 2016 Baum des Lichtes, who only has 91 edits, proceeded to open 12-13 AFD's in a 10 hour edit run history and is following the same AFD behaviors. All the players are showing up at the group of artist and music bio afds to !vote/discuss in similar vote patterns. It just all seems too strange and coincidental. There are a few other named accounts involved who all started accounts in march, april, and may, plus two other ips involved, but I will look those over more to find proper stats and evidence before naming those. Can these ips and names be added to the report here based on behavioral evidence, so maybe someone can figure out who is really who? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Baum des Lichtes isn't connected to any of these, I don't believe. Their behaviour is suspicious, however, and I believe it is now being investigated by check users. KaisaL (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my, 208.81.212.224 is a legitimate alternate account. Alerting User:Walter Görlitz to this SPI. To be honest though, I was initially suspicious as well and started searching the SPI archives. Later realised it was a legitimate account. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that has caused confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment As I'm learning more about being a member here and have been reading up on codes of conduct and such, I came across this which I thought was quite interesting given the discussion and accusations. WP:DNB states "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute". Everything I've read so far seems to be the complete opposite of my treatment so far. My first comment and someone flagged my account for investigation. I hope this can be resolved quickly. How long does this process usually take as I would like to start contributing but prefer to wait until this investigation is over. Morph1138 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IPs are now old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)