Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.50.192.193/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Unconstructive editing in the Project Semicolon article over a lede formatting, although initially acted in good faith. First as IP, second as a registered user , and last as IP again. Blue sphere  17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Woah, hey there! I swear I'm not either of those anonymous users, and I'm not socking or whatever it is. I made this account to comment on and revert the first revision, but I didn't make the first edit, nor that third one. The one revision/reversion I made was in good faith, I swear, and I did leave an explanation. I think that first user's change is an appropriate one, especially because I've been personally affected by that organization.

When my reversion-reversion was reversed (reversion-reversion-reversion? this whole editing thing is weird), Bluesphere left a kind of scary message on my Talkpage and threatened me with losing my editing privilege. I went to that Blue fellow's talk page about it and again explained the revision that I made.

I'm not out to do socks or cause trouble, I love this website.

If my one reversion was inappropriate, then I certainly apologize, but I honestly think it was the right thing to do there, and I swear I did it in good faith. I didn't make those other accounts or do socking.Eris Griffon (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to "scare" you in your talk page, but to simply warn you to refrain from edit warring in the article. But your case is getting too obvious as I'm getting reverted multiple times by other users in the same reason that you provided. I don't care if it's not you. If one of the users are nearby your area, you must tell hem to stop contesting the edit. Blue  sphere  17:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this whole editing thing, and after this I promise I won't try to contribute again, I swear. I don't know how them agreeing with me is a problem? Because me and the other person agree with the first person, that's not allowed? To disagree with your reversion of the first person, myself and the third fellow have to have different reasons? I'm not feigning ignorance, honestly, I'm just very new to all of this and don't understand the rules. You said you don't care if it's not me, but then why did you include me in the investigation? I'm also not sure what you mean that I have to tell nearby people to stop contesting the edit. Am I supposed to try to geolocate them by the provided IP address and knock on their doors? That kind of seems like a really invasive policy for Wikipedia to have, and I'm not going to use the web site if people are going to be coming to my door to tell me not to edit things. I didn't realize that making my one edit was going to cause all of this, and I promise I won't do any more edits again. I apologize for trying to do so. --Eris Griffon (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There's too much edit warring going on here. I've protected the article against editing for two days. and, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of reverting each other. Erisgriffon, if that's you editing as an IP, please don't log out to continue an edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)