Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

You know what they say, and this one fits the bill. No pun intended. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

You know what they say... You should not shoot yourself in the foot before you have any evidence. The fact that there are multiple IPs does not indicate a sock farm. At this point if you continue this frivolous investigation any further I shall have you nominated for an ANI. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "No evidence", and yet there are diffs above. "Nominated for an ANI" That's exactly what the blocked IP editor said when he claimed I was "harassing him" on his talk page. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You yourself are nominated for an ANI. You should think twice before you shoot yourself in the foot again. Your behavior does not amuse me. Multiple IPs does not indicate a sock. If you bothered to read the SPI above you would see that yourself. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and dandy. Your abuse of ANI will be taken into consideration, as well. I'm glad it didn't entertain you, as that wasn't the point of this SPI case. The above case is still open, and awaiting a behavioral check. The Checkuser was denied, as they cannot be done between IPs, and logged editors. So, I'm don't know what you're on about. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The check user was denied on multiple grounds including the fact that multiple IPs DOES NOT indicate different editors. As you are showing a limited understanding of internet infrastructure I fear that discussion is falling on deaf ears. Please come back when you have a credible case for an SPI rather than one that is merely based on NOTHUMAN --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said here, that's why you opened an ANI case against me, using the name of Skyring? Feel free to go through my contributions, and see that not all of my interactions with IP editors are negative. Even my talk page, as well. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Multiple IPs does not indicate a sock, that is true. However your first edit was to reply to a post about the banned IP, saying "Actually its bad faith to assume that I am being disruptive". Not to mention the incredible similarity in IPs. This is without a doubt the worst sock attempt I have ever seen. Don't ever apply for a job with MI5. Jevansen (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering the facts of the above, even if it were the case. The way IPs cycle, over matters of hours at a time, there would still be no intent to sock here. In fact even if this case were not spurious which it is in this instance it would be on your onus to prove a deliberate sock. The time between edits alone should make it clear it is not even a simple case of IP cycling so on that matter alone, this is not a sock. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Riiiight. You were blocked, and you know you should not be editing at all, and yet you carry on under the pretense that it's not your fault your IP migrated. See how far that one gets you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if this isn't a deliberate sock attempt, you were blocked for 24 hours earlier today, so technically wouldn't this be ban evasion? I don't know much about this I just thought it was fishy that someone blocked would then be able to continue editing talk pages etc. TripleRoryFan (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your attitude during this whole process is utterly incomprehensible. As per your complaints even if they were valid, which they are not, you would have to verify your statements with some kind of proof of deliberate intent, to deceive, to evade, or to sock. In turning your argument above on its ear. The deliberate use of I would show no clue of the facts that the person in question was remotely aware of the events that had happened between the times in question. Your bad faith is disgusting. At best you have highlighted someone who had no clue a temporary injunction was in place. This is not an example of a sock. This falls under WP:EWLO --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * EWLO? So what's your account when you're logged in? Jevansen (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to read EWLO there is no problem with editing while logged out, you have to prove there was intent to deceive. You would have to be incredibly daft to believe such a deliberate infraction was in any way deliberate. You really need to stop wasting everyone's time. EWLO clearly deals with sessions that have expired. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet, you claimed while logged in to not be any other editors "any other guise". "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." Does that sound familiar? It should. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No warning was given about the EWLO behavior that was claimed, you also have to prove that in the EWLO activity there was intent to deceive. I would find this incredibly flabbergasting if you thought that someone was that stupid, and it would show an incredible sense of bad faith. If you had have warned about the EWLO behavior I am sure it would have stopped. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a case of EWLO. You should know, since you've been blocked before for the same thing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you are being incredibly tendentious about your behavior why don't you prove that I have been blocked for anything of the sort and that this is not a EWLO. As a peace offering, I will not edit in any of the mentioned spaces (or any other spaces) for the next 24 hours. This should clarify the first problem, on the matter of the second, please prove your claims or desist from them. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"3RR violation on Government of Australia", "Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring -- arbcom-imposed month ban, "breach of one year ban 3 days after its issuing by the ArbComm. resetting ban for year from today as per instruction in ruling.", "ban evasion", "block evasion". Here's my favorite, "22:54, June 11, 2007 Hesperian (talk | contribs) blocked Skyring (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (edit war canvassing)". The list goes on, and on.. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You really are on a wild goose chase -_- --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How so? You already said that you're Skyring, editing logged out. Though you said to the contrary earlier while logged in, see link above. That's your block log. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I said nothing of the sort, the check user will not prove anything of the sort. At best you can claim a EWLO. At worst you will prove to everyone how hasty you are and how ridiculous your beliefs are that I am anyone of the sort. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This diff begs to differ. Tell me, if you're not Skyring, why do you care so much why I opened an SPI against him?Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:EWLO does not mean what you think it does. I suggest you clarify your understanding of the policy before a check user proves a point that I am not who you think I am. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it means not editing while logged out, and pretending you do not have an account. Which you did above, and is linked to diffs to prove so. Otherwise known as canvassing. Which you've been blocked for before. You only stopped admitting to being Skyring when I pointed this out. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As I have told you previously I am not Skyring, you really are pushing the limits of reasonable grace at this point. A simple EWLO on my talk page would have reminded me that the blocked IP was my own. I have no relation to Skyring. I have offered you an olive branch as a peace offering. If you wish to really go down this pathway, please provide any long-standing diffs that would prove ANY relationship beyond the last 72hours that I even have any idea what so ever that I know who Skyring is... I have already given you a long list of other IPs I have edited under. Please feel free to check the diffs and find ANYTHING at all to support the fact that I am who you say I am. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * EWLO is not editing after blocked under a different migrated IP. No where does it say that. The diffs you need are all above. You are the one that continually ignored them. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to be any more explicit with you at this point. I am not who you say I am, your diffs will not conclude this fact, and you are wasting the check user or admins time. The fact that incidentally while I was dealing with matters of personal effect, I happened to return to a new session here on Wikipedia is not grounds for your claim. It is grounds for proving an EWLO, it has nothing to do with proving your case. I am telling you now in black and white terms the check user will not uncover what you think it will. You are starting to make me believe you really are a lost cause --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "I am not who you say I am, your diffs will not conclude this fact, and you are wasting the check user or admins time." That's what you say every time I point them out to you. Then you claim that no evidence was given, whatsoever.


 * "The fact that incidentally while I was dealing with matters of personal effect, I happened to return to a new session here on Wikipedia is not grounds for your claim. It is grounds for proving an EWLO, it has nothing to do with proving your case." Again, that's not what EWLO is.


 * "I am telling you now in black and white terms the check user will not uncover what you think it will." You sound more like you're trying convince yourself that. You're not doing a very good job of convincing anyone else.


 * "You are starting to make me believe you really are a lost cause." You keep whining about good faith, and yet keep hurling snide insults like this. Let's not forget that at the beginning of this SPI case, you claimed there was no evidence linking you to the sock IP in this case. "You know what they say... You should not shoot yourself in the foot before you have any evidence. The fact that there are multiple IPs does not indicate a sock farm. At this point if you continue this frivolous investigation any further I shall have you nominated for an ANI." I'm done. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is clearly what EWLO entails, you must consider an IP as a human, and with an editing space also (even if temporarily). At best the fact that my session expired and there was an inadvertent series of edits under a 24hour infraction. At worst you keep digging that hole all the way to China. The check user or admin who patrols this page will not find any link beyond our recent interaction on the page in question. This is not enough to assume sock/meat puppetry. You are clearly intent on wasting everybody's time so at this point I am really done myself with someone who is acting in a clearly irrational way. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying EWLO is WP:HUMAN? I already pointed out either above in this case, or in the SPI involving Skyring that the edits between the your IP edits, and your logged in edits coincide close enough to show that you're clearly canvassing. Keep hurling those insults, see where it gets you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point you are delusional, just because we happen to agree on one area, that is not a case for "canvassing" --2001:8003:645C:9200:A4E5:AE00:5E74:85BE (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A word in support
Boomer Vial is confused and delusional here and elsewhere, but in this particular case I think he is spot on with his initial report. The IP user is a sock of the one blocked earlier for edit-warring and now evading that block. If a rangeblock is feasible, it should be employed. And the initial block extended. And Boomer, please don't feed the troll. --Pete (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A range block should be implemented for the IP sock farm. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, when an ISP allocates an IPv6, they commonly allocate an entire /64 range to the same user. So anything beginning 2001:8003:645C:9200: may be assumed to be the same editor, and when blocking IPv6s, it makes sense to block the entire /64 range as Rob has now done. That avoids having this sort of nonsensical denial from the IP and we really don't need an SPI to assume that 2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F and 2001:8003:645C:9200:A4E5:AE00:5E74:85BE are the same user – the combined chance of (i) an ISP breaking up a /64 range; and (ii) two different people sharing the same /64 range then both editing the same Wikipedia article, are rather smaller than that of Satan going shopping for ice-skates. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, when an ISP allocates an IPv6, they commonly allocate an entire /64 range to the same user. So anything beginning 2001:8003:645C:9200: may be assumed to be the same editor, and when blocking IPv6s, it makes sense to block the entire /64 range as Rob has now done. That avoids having this sort of nonsensical denial from the IP and we really don't need an SPI to assume that 2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F and 2001:8003:645C:9200:A4E5:AE00:5E74:85BE are the same user – the combined chance of (i) an ISP breaking up a /64 range; and (ii) two different people sharing the same /64 range then both editing the same Wikipedia article, are rather smaller than that of Satan going shopping for ice-skates. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * – We do not use CheckUser on IP editors. Having said that, I've blocked the /64 due to clear block evasion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Quack. Quack. An obvious avoidance of the range block placed yesterday. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:56, 18 November 2017 (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

 * The range block expired only four hours after that, and they only commented on my talk page. I'm not inclined to re-block for that now that the range block has run out. Closing. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)