Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.114.133.44/Archive

Report date July 20 2009, 19:16 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

On July 17, 2009 @ 11:44 Wikipedia time, IP editor 76.114.133.44 put in edit on Rebecca Quick’s article that was both unsource and defamatory. I tried reverting this edit of IP editor, and every time I did, it would immediately be reverted back to the same unsource and defamatory edit with no edit summary. The situation got out of control, and two additional administrators had to intervene. Long story short, 76.114.133.44 was given a 24-hour block for edit warring when it was all said and done, seven total reverts committed in that first round of edit warring.
 * Evidence submitted by KeltieMartinFan

However, after his 24-hour block had expired, he continued with a second round of brash editing two days later on July 19th with more administrators involved. In that second round, he provided a source, which upon futher investigation was not adequate at all to support edit he was trying to put in the beginning.

To better illustrate the sequence of events, I listed them on a timeline. This is how it went down the second round...

July 19th @ 13:18 wiki time: 72-hour block was placed for edit-warring again. Eight reverts in that second round, for a grand total of fifteen reverts the two rounds. Just like before, no edit summary for any of those fifteen reverts.

July 20th @ 3:50: 76.114.133.44’s very last edit on his talk page prior to it being protected.

July 20th @ 8:25: Talk page was protected because of continuous disobedience by this editor to administrators for deleting edits that outline his incivility.

Moving on to today’s events...

July 20th @ 12:41: Just a little over four hours after 76.114.133.44’s editing privileges were absolutely frozen, another IP editor, 162.6.97.3, goes on Rebecca Quick’s article, and puts the same defamatory edit using the exact same inadequate source that 76.114.133.44 provided to support that edit.

July 20th @ 13:19: I revert 162.6.97.3’s edit on the basis mentioned above.

July 20th @ 13:31 – 13:38: In a span of seven minutes, this second editor...

wrote a comment on my talk page about his intentions to file a complaint against me,

filed a complaint indeed under the edit warring noticeboard (despite no proper grounds for that complain since it was only one single revert),

and reverted my edit on Rebecca Quick’s article to his version, and just like his predessesing editor, leaves no edit summary for his revert.

July 20th @ 16:11 – 16:13: Editor 162.6.97.3 went to 76.114.133.44’s talk page, and began deleting warnings by administrators. (On a sidenote: whenever an administrator had something to say on 162.6.97.3’s talk page, he would delete those comments too shortly thereafter. The same exact manner as 76.114.133.44.)

Of course, there were other events before, duriing and after the times that I had mentioned, but I didn’t think they are major enough to mention.

In summary...the mannerism, actions and approach of both editors 76.114.133.44 & 162.6.97.3 are identically precise and accurate. Both have an extensive history log of brash edits in a span of a single day. Both showed hostility towards me and administrators. 162.6.97.3 IMMEDIATELY showed hostility the second he noticed my revert on his initial edit. No editor would show that amount of hostility at the very beginning and immediately take me to Wikipedia court right away. Probable cause had to be involved somehow prior, and I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out where that probably cause came from. The events of 162.6.97.3 happened shortly after the events of 76.114.133.44 were frozen. Coincidence? Finally, 162.6.97.3 tried to erase all the negative information on 76.114.133.44 talk page, just like 76.114.133.44 tried to do before his editing privileges were disabled. Could we be dealing with a copycat editor? Anything possible.

In my opinion, it seems pretty clear. Editor 162.6.97.3 is a sockpuppet of editor 76.114.133.44 that he is using to evade the 72-hour absolute block placed on him, and continue on with his unique controversial style of editing. And if all the evidents that I presented to the administrators today are not enough, I submit one final piece of evidence pertaining to the locations of these two particular IP addresses. I’m sure administrators can figure out that looking of IP address locations is just as easy as looking up area codes and zip codes online. Upon futher investigation, I find that the location of these two IP address are not more than ten miles away from each other. For securitiy reasons, I will not divaulge the whereabout of these locations, but surely anybody can figure this part out.

I suspect that editors 76.114.133.44 & 162.6.97.3 are the exact same person. Therefore I insist that an administrator take a look at everything that I had to present, and come to the most appropriate action on these two identically similar disruptive editors. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

If I had to make a wild guess I'd say that these ip's are the same user. The 76 ip seem to be thier home ip address and the 162 is thier work ip as it belongs to the American Red Cross headquaters. Both have been blocked for 72 hours, and the page has been protected so no further action needs to be taken. If further disruption occurs, extend the length and range as appropriate for the two ip's. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)