Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/75.2.208.87/Archive

12 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Starting on December 10, 2012 an IP user began at one IP then moved to another deleting secondary supporting references and even blanking sections such as at Mirro Aluminum Company. Please see: Special:Contributions/75.2.208.87 Then jumping to ... Special:Contributions/75.0.192.157 I left a Welcome and a caution at User talk:75.2.208.87 then the behavior continued with reverts made by User:75.0.192.157 as, "rv frivolous revert by wikistalker who doesn't understand the issue - See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Reliability_on_genealogy_websites) " This obviously is User:75.2.208.87 at a new different IP address as User:75.0.192.157. This action also triggered some warning tags by quick reverts by an un-registered user. The unknown user is very familiar with Wikipedia, but is deliberately not logging in. This may or may not indicate an attempt to hide or confound Wikipedia rules as a sock puppet. It may or may not also be a sign of a user trying to bully a policy or change around decisions made else where. And that he/she is using words like “wikistalker” to intimidate is also not helpful. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2012 (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

 * IPs change. That entire 75.0.0.0 to 75.63.255.255 block is owned by SBC, and editors will automatically get reassigned new IPs, so the change in the IP is likely unintentional.  As for "not logging in", no one is required to have an account to edit here.  This isn't really an issue for Sockpuppet Investigations.  If they break 3RR, then WP:AN3, if other behavior is a problem, then WP:ANI, but this isn't socking unless you are trying to tie them to a particular registered editor and can show they are evading a block, or evading scrutiny somehow. A random sampling of the edits show that there is good faith in the edits, even if they are mistaken.  Of course, there may be edits that are not in good faith as well that I didn't see, but that isn't an SPI issue per se and you didn't link any particular diffs that show abuse of multiple accounts, so closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)