Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/202.136.69.223/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


Reminded of a blocked user who made making inconsequential edits such as changing location to "in Mumbai" to "in City of Mumbai"..

Has engaged in edit-war and did not discuss issue when proposed... Same editing pattern and IP range is similar.. I'm not sure how check-user works for stale IP puppet, but figured I must report. Thanks. Kiran_891 (TALK) 20:44, 6 March 2022 (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's no way a CU is going to check an IP and report on their findings. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The IPs are on 202.136.69.208/28. 202.136.69.223 hasn't edited since January, however they clearly hopped to ‎202.136.69.220, then to ‎202.136.69.212 which they've been static on since 2 February. They're plainly tendentious, and clearly the same editor, though I'll let an admin decide on outcome here. Jack Frost (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not socking, just a somewhat dynamic IP, the use of which is not prohibited and unavoidable for a majority of people. If there is an issue with their conduct or the substance of their edits, consider taking this to a more suitable noticeboard. Closing, recommend G6 in lieu of archiving. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same editing patterns (Indian banks/companies; localities in Pune/Mumbai, occasionally politicians); Biggest give is the IP range is same (202.136.69.xxx)

There are other IPs on the same range doing same exact edits (e.g. instead of saying "in Mumbai", they will make a pointless edit like "in the City of Mumbai". These IPs have been temporarily been banned many times, so this is WP:EVASION, and still for some reason no socking related action has been taken. They have called such editing bans futile !?. I'm certain this user has been utilizing additional IPs in the same range.

Previously reported (see archive above), one user agreed but the closer decided it was nothing but a dynamic IP and not the same user..

Kiran_891 (TALK) 16:20, 2 April 2022 (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

 * Blocked 202.136.69.0/24 for one year. Single 103. IP hasn't edited in over a year. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Attempt at Block Evasion. Others IPs listed above – one was blocked for vandalism by User:Ohnoitsjamie – is also in the same range. Kiran_891 (TALK) 17:04, 7 April 2022 (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

 * I actually don't rightly know what to do here: "someone" is confirmed as a sock. Perhaps this whole SPI should be moved to that name. Awkward, but I really need a paper trail here, because I'm about to block another range. (I blocked a smaller one (/64 instead of /38), for shorter than I wanted.) Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the past, I've just referenced this SPI in the block log and the IP as the master. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Callanecc, but what if it's not an IP but an account? Drmies (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * CU block it without referencing the case and don't tag it. You can note the connection on the CUwiki or in the CU log in case someone goes looking later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do here. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)