Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.24.5.250/Archive

29 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Edit-- I wanted to expand on how exactly this is a WP:SOCK case despite the relative lack of simultaneous edits across multiple IPs since that in and of itself is not automatically disruptive. The issue here is the apparent self-awareness of using multiple IPs and the ideological statements regarding anonymous editing. Were this some user off doing random copyedits in the mainspace this wouldn't be important. When the user is making personal accusations against other volunteers in the project space, attempting to seek sanction against others despite attempting to remain immune of sanction themselves, and performing multiple edits in highly-related related articles, it does become a matter of accountability and transparency.

Original posting follows below: ♪ Tstorm(talk) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

IPs are listed in order of use which is why it looks odd to have the case IP making so few edits. All geolocate identally. All of them edit solely in the Gamergate, "Social justice" and "gender politics" area. There is very little overlap between IPs but given the controversial locations of edits and tenacious claims against other users holding a user to but one IP address is absolutely vital. Of the socks, 76.64.35.209 was by far the most active, including scores of edits at the contentious WP:ARBGG case.. Through lengthy discussion it's clear that this user has a familiarity with many Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Overall editor behaviour I would call "feisty", though 63.142.161.25 had a 3RR violation on 29 October with 6 total reverts. Edits have not been 100% nonconstructive, though looking at the sum of all edits there are large WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM vibes, with a focus on attacking other editors and not discussing actual content. It's worth noting that ArbCom has been extremely generous in giving leeway to persons who have submitted evidence at WP:ARBGG and, were this not such a special case this user could easily have been reported for incivility weeks ago..

The user here admits to using multiple IP addresses and was later advised in ArbCom discussion to create an account to avoid issues with SPIs/multiple IP addresses but the user appeared to refused on principle of being able to contribute anonymously. Note: I understand that IP editor content is welcomed at ArbCom, but combined with the other IPs and refusal to allows implicated editors to "face their accusers" it shows a fundamental pattern of dishonesty. Since the advice to make an account and the end of 76.64.35.209 posting there have been 2 new IPs following the same patterns, including two separate that have personally appealed to User_talk:Jimmy Wales which in and of itself is evidence of dishonesty and desire to hold onto ideals of anonymous editing over those of better helping us create an encyclopedia. I'm trying to keep this section short; admins are encouraged to contact me on my talk page if desired and I can look further into diffs if more evidence as requested. This evidence did not require much digging and I have no doubt that there's a lot more that could be uncovered if was necessary.

Finally, I wanted to mention that all user input and discussion has been completed at WP:ARBGG with only arbitrator actions pending, so even if blocked the IP that participated at ArbCom would not miss out on any possible further participation. It could be considered rude to close that door under the assumption of innocence (pending possible appeals) were evidence/workshop still open but thankfully will not be an issue here. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 10:42, 29 December 2014 (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'm not taking any action in this forum. Many of the IPs are stale. A few edited in mid-December. I believe only one has edited recently. Just because a person uses multiple IP addresses does not mean that those IPs escape sanctions. If they are disruptive, they may be blocked. It's true that there are occasions that we block IPs based on an IP master account, but they are relatively rare, and I don't think this instance merits such an action. There's also an implication in the remarks of the filer that the IPs know too much as if they're actually hiding behind a named account, but there's no evidence of any connection to a named account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)