Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.119.67.94/Archive

Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson
68.119.67.94 was indefinitely blocked on 2 December 2009. 24.196.12.254 edited only on 3 December 2009. 71.91.18.218 first edited on 6 January 2010. All of 24.196.12.254's edits, all of 71.91.18.218's edits, and almost all of 68.119.67.94's edits have been on one topic. The editing on this topic has been endless edit warring and dispute, mainly at Fairfax County Public Schools, but also to a lesser extent at Joyce Kilmer Middle School. The editor has persistently been edit warring and refusing to accept consensus since November 2009. The editor was indefinitely blocked for making two legal threats.

All three IPs reslove to the ISP CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; 71.91.18.218 and 68.119.67.94 both to Birmingham, Alabama, and 24.196.12.254 to Alabaster, Alabama. Alabaster is 17 miles from Downtown Birmingham, according to http://www.cityofalabaster.com/.

68.119.67.94 followed a campaign of edit warring to try to impose a particular POV on one section of Fairfax County Public Schools. Both the other two editors have made no edits except for attempts to maintain the same POV. In fact in some case the edits are identical or nearly identical: see for example this edit by 68.119.67.94, this one by 24.196.12.254, and this one by 71.91.18.218.

Contributions to Talk:Fairfax County Public Schools are also very similar, not only in defending the same edits to the article, but also in their whole character and aggressive tone.

Time and again we see edit warring, eg, , , and , , from 71.91.18.218, and , , , ,  from 68.119.67.94.

Kraftlos asked 71.91.18.218 if he was the same editor as 68.119.67.94. (To explain Kraftlos's question, 68.119.67.94 had stated that he was personally involved in the incident referred to: "I may be biased, but I have all the facts because I was the "father" involved. I am tthe one they interviewed and was on the news, etc." (here). 71.91.18.218's response was "I kind if take it as a personal attack that you even asked me that". It is extremely difficult to see any reason why this should be taken as an attack by any editor acting in good faith. If it was a different editor surely "no, as a matter of fact I am not" would have been sufficient. If it was the same editor acting in good faith "Yes, I am" might have been expected. If, however, it was the same indefinitely blocked editor, using a different IP address as a block-evading sockpuppet, then anger at the suggestion would make more sense, particularly as the question of conflict of interest had been raised with the previous IP.

I could easily go on with more, but there is, I think, enough evidence above to establish that we have here IP socks used to evade an indefinite block. Anyone who wants more can read through Talk:Fairfax County Public Schools and a random sample of a few of these IPs' edits: in my opinion no duck ever quacked more loudly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

You guys are idiots the ban was not indefinite. It was for a legal threat. It was for a week. So much for the sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.18.218 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I believe that 68.110.226.30 is also the same user Tedickey (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very likely, but since that IP has not edited since December 2007 it's not very relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was relevant to this discussion. If the addresses are dynamically assigned, then a lease on a particular address can expire and become unusable by a given user.  (There are some cases where a dynamic IP has been owned by a mixture of users - some well-behaved and others not). Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it is not relevant cause the ban was for a week, so much for the socks. Also, another editor agreed that the section should stay.  I have not reverted but one time, and a consensus has not been reached since the new editor worked out an article, you all are just pretending that did not happen. 71.91.18.218 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, your "ban" is technically in effect until you either retract your legal threat or when legal proceedings have ended. Are you still standing by that legal threat you have made? –MuZemike 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the IP is referring to still another instance, the block was indefinite, as noted. Tedickey (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we didn't block IP addresses indefinitely? Lady  of  Shalott  03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the notice on User talk:68.119.67.94 says that it is an indefinite block. I cannot find anywhere where it is stated to be for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the tag does say indefinite - almost certainly because of the legal threat, which would earn an indefinite block until retraction - but the block log says it was for two weeks (not one) - presumably because it was on an IP address. IP, have you retracted the legal threat? (If not previously, will you do so now?) Lady  of  Shalott  15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that "I have not reverted but one time" means "I have reverted only once", then I suggest looking at         where the editor reverted. For simplicity I have given only cases where the reversion was exactly to a previous version, not cases where an edit was substantially reverted but with some changes, nor cases where an edit was reverted exactly, but intervening edits were left in place. I have searched through only part of the edit history, so that there may well be more. As for "another editor agreed that the section should stay", yes, but failed to gain consensus; in fact failed to gain any support at all except from 71.91.18.218. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support from me and support from him is equal support. Thus no consensus. Also, no one else has chimed up since I pointed out that you are attempting to essentially erase history.  What they had was wrong, that is why it made worldwide news. Pretending it did not does not make it so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.154 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Obviously the IPs are all being used by the same person, however, I can't seem to calculate any range blocks (anyone else is welcome to try), and it'd probably be pretty pointless even if I could since they're IP hopping. I suggest just blocking the individual IPs as they come up (for block evasion). Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No way we can do a rangeblock here. Unfortunately, we are left with playing whack-a-mole. If this worsens, consider requesting a semi at WP:RFPP. Tim Song (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "IP hopping". As far as I can see the user used just one IP address until that one was blocked, then used another one on one occasion only, and has since consistently used one more, apart from this one edit. It seems to me that it would be worth at least trying a block on the IP address in current use: there is a possibility that the user would get the message.
 * "IP hopping" in that they aren't sticking with in one range. What I suggested was blocking the IPs "as they come" (ie. block the most recent now, then if a new IP comes up block that, etc), regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for the clarification. I agree with that suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marking as closed as no further action by the IPs have occurred. –MuZemike 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)