Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2.122.107.103/Archive

06 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The talk pages and edit histories for both Lex Luthor in other media and Bryan Cranston. Tendentious edit warring for the same edit, each time from a different IP (the account Harrypottr66 might have been created to override a possible semi-protection, was not used more than a few times), digging in my history to retort with a semi-personal attack and so on and so forth. When told to stop IP hopping, ignored request every single time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2013 (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
There seems to be little point to this. Yeah, there may well be IP hopping going on courtesy of the same editor, on purpose or not (I have no opinion yet on the Harry Potter account), but this is a bit silly. Two registered accounts, and now this one (me) as well, have reverted or otherwise corrected Hearfourmewesique, so we have a content dispute in which they're on the losing end. I suggest closing this, and that the stick be dropped. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and at least three registered accounts sided with me on the Cranston page, the argument is well balanced. The IP hopping and the possible connection to the Harry Potter account needs to be investigated, as this is most likely (judging also by their approach and knowledge of Wikipedia) a block evader. Whether they are right or wrong in that particular dispute is less relevant. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those editors all cite "unexplained removal of cited material" in an edit summary; perfectly valid, but not to the point. The Lex Luthor talk page has extensive discussion where your position gained no traction at all. It's entirely possible that there's some socking going on, and Harry would be fair game for such a block, but on the whole this is a waste of time, and CU won't get involved with an IP fishing expedition anyway. Then again, if Harry is created by the IP editor, but subsequent IP edits could be by a different person (I haven't checked the sequence of the edits), then all they've done is edit warring. But that's just my opinion. I left this note (and on the Luthor talk page) for you also: there's more important things to do than fighting over a rumor. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a great middle ground proposal by an editor on the Cranston page – to cite the report along with the dismissal – to which I agreed but no one took it any further. But we digress again, as this is neither ANI nor 3RR. Their opinion and number of edits should not merit any significance to the discussion, but instead it has trumped both pages as the alleged majority of "legitimate users". It is nothing but a ruse, and encouraging admins to "drop the stick" sends the wrong message and is a huge middle finger to the Wikipedia community. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Closed. People can't help having dynamic IPs, so asking them to stop won't help. Harrypottr66 only has 7 edits and is from 2012, so it is quite likely unrelated, and it can't edit through semiprotection anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)