Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.204.29.215/Archive

Evidence submitted by Vianello

 * User account is created during altercation with IP on their talk page, AIV report of IP for personal attacks on User:Momusufan. Compare, . - Vianello (Talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Subsequent altercation between myself and IP leads to IP claim of intent to report myself for "vandalism". User warns me for an accidental blank of aforementioned IP page (the user's sole actual editing action), then executes an AIV report, for that exact offense levied by the IP, on that exact page, after no further action on my part. The IP, which just expressed the intention of filing a report, does not. - Vianello (Talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In summary: The user account pops up during the IP's contested activitieBoth shars, beelines for somebody with whom the IP just had an altercation and whom the IP had stated intention to report to AIV, issues them an initial-level warning for interactions related to that IP, then promptly lodges a very persistent AIV report when no further interaction with the IP takes place. These are the user's sole actions (as of time of writing) aside from laying down a single-sentence user page. - Vianello (Talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, a warning template issued by User:Momusufan on the IP's talk page was also met by vandalism accusations by the same user for the same supposed offense (page blanking). - Vianello (Talk) 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor notes: Both IP and user have demonstrated fundamentally sound understanding of Wikipedia systems, terms, and procedures. Both also share a habit of removing anything posted on their talk pages. This is a very minor note, but both have a shared tendency to omit signatures on talk pages. Combined with the above, I feel the total evidence provides a strong indication they are the same user. - Vianello (Talk) 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Subsequently removed informational templates placed on talk page for future logins. The IP was subsequently barred from editing talk page. After this, the user stepped in and re-instated the removal, claiming "vandalism" again. - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
As a non-evidence-related comment, I recognize the findings of this report will not impact the decision made in relation to my AIV report. If this user is found to be a sock puppet of the IP, I realize it does and should not affect the judgment made on the AIV report. Conversely, I also recognize the decision made on the AIV should not impact the legitimacy of this submission. These are related but ultimately separate matters that should be treated as such - if the AIV is legitimate, using sockpuppetry to "prop it up" remains unacceptable, and if the sockpuppetry is legitimate, if my behavior is found wanting, it is not excused by that. - Vianello (Talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How it started was that this IP was personally attacking another user, the other edit along with other IP's and one user account which got his talk page protected for 6 hours. The other IP's and the lone user account were blocked but this one was not.  Thats basicly what i'm getting out of it.   Momo san  Gespräch 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to re-list this as a block evasion case? I'm not 100% sure I understand the background here, but that's kind of what it sounds like. - Vianello (Talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is now blocked based on my re-request at AIV, if you want to add the other IP's and user account to the list, that is fine.  Momo san  Gespräch 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * looks like he wishes to continue this behavior even after he's blocked, maybe revoking his talk page access will send a message.  Momo san  Gespräch 19:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page editing privileges have been revoked for that IP. Removal of those informational templates is not an option, as they provide what may be essential information if someone else later logs on via that IP. - Vianello (Talk) 19:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding again, the user's talk page got protected because of BLP and personal attacks following an opinion column attacking the editor by name. everyone could be a different user but doing a sockpuppet check doesn't hurt here.  Momo san  Gespräch 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend checkusering the IP for other sleepers as I know is another sock of this ip. If you would like details of how I know please email me as it may have some privacy issues. βcommand 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
("Good sock, bad sock" account behavior with malicious intent to secure user block)   Requested by - Vianello (Talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

– WP:DUCK applies. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

per Betacommand's findings. –MuZemike 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
is ✅ as

has only edited from a mobile range, so s/he is. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't really see a need to tag the accounts here, so marking as closed. NW ( Talk ) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)